https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256472 The concession agreement could not override the later VAT regime, so the concessionaire remained bound to deduct tax at source from running account bills and remit it to the Government. The petitioner's own books, comparative statements, and audit reports showed tax was deducted but only partly remitted, contradicting the plea that no deduction had been made. The refund notification did not permit withholding remittance first and claiming refund later, because refund operated only after lawful payment. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation could not defeat the statutory scheme, and the writ was tainted by suppression of material facts and false averments. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256472 The concession agreement could not override the later VAT regime, so the concessionaire remained bound to deduct tax at source from running account bills and remit it to the Government. The petitioner's own books, comparative statements, and audit reports showed tax was deducted but only partly remitted, contradicting the plea that no deduction had been made. The refund notification did not permit withholding remittance first and claiming refund later, because refund operated only after lawful payment. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation could not defeat the statutory scheme, and the writ was tainted by suppression of material facts and false averments. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256472