https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183746 Section 10(5) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was construed according to its plain terms: where input tax deductible by a dealer exceeds output tax payable, the excess must be adjusted or refunded with interest. The refund mechanism could not be postponed or denied on a plea of unjust enrichment, as that doctrine was treated as inapplicable to the statutory scheme. Refund applications also could not be kept in abeyance merely because the department intended to challenge an earlier binding Division Bench ruling. The earlier ruling was applied to confirm that sale of an exempt by-product does not defeat input tax benefit where the dealer manufactures only the taxable principal product. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:41:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183746 Section 10(5) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was construed according to its plain terms: where input tax deductible by a dealer exceeds output tax payable, the excess must be adjusted or refunded with interest. The refund mechanism could not be postponed or denied on a plea of unjust enrichment, as that doctrine was treated as inapplicable to the statutory scheme. Refund applications also could not be kept in abeyance merely because the department intended to challenge an earlier binding Division Bench ruling. The earlier ruling was applied to confirm that sale of an exempt by-product does not defeat input tax benefit where the dealer manufactures only the taxable principal product. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183746