https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248719 Tax deducted at source on works contract payments, treated under the statute as tax paid on the dealer's behalf, could not be refused as a refund on unjust enrichment where the assessment had already accepted the assessee's non-liability and the T.D.S. certificate. Section 29-A did not apply because the dealer had not wrongly realised tax from another person, and the post-assessment enquiry was limited to verifying deposit of the deducted amount in the Government treasury under the rules. The refusal of refund was therefore unsustainable, and refund with statutory interest was upheld subject to treasury verification. en-us Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248719 Tax deducted at source on works contract payments, treated under the statute as tax paid on the dealer's behalf, could not be refused as a refund on unjust enrichment where the assessment had already accepted the assessee's non-liability and the T.D.S. certificate. Section 29-A did not apply because the dealer had not wrongly realised tax from another person, and the post-assessment enquiry was limited to verifying deposit of the deducted amount in the Government treasury under the rules. The refusal of refund was therefore unsustainable, and refund with statutory interest was upheld subject to treasury verification. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248719