https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166543 Where tax collected by a dealer was later refunded to the purchaser after a retrospective shift of liability, the dealer could not be compelled to deposit the same amount again with the Department, because Section 43 of the U.P. VAT Act applied only to sums realised in contravention of sections 22 and 23. The refund had already been verified by the assessing authority and confirmed in the departmental report, so a further remand solely to recheck that refund served no useful purpose and was rightly set aside. en-us Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166543 Where tax collected by a dealer was later refunded to the purchaser after a retrospective shift of liability, the dealer could not be compelled to deposit the same amount again with the Department, because Section 43 of the U.P. VAT Act applied only to sums realised in contravention of sections 22 and 23. The refund had already been verified by the assessing authority and confirmed in the departmental report, so a further remand solely to recheck that refund served no useful purpose and was rightly set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166543