https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186920 Section 29-A(3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act was construed as barring refund only to a person other than the one from whom tax was actually realised. Where that person expressly authorised the dealer to receive the refund on its behalf, and acknowledged that the tax had been collected from the dealer, the dealer was treated as an authorised agent rather than a distinct claimant. This reading avoids double recovery and prevents unjust enrichment. On those facts, the dealer was not regarded as an "other person" within the statutory restriction, and refund to the dealer on behalf of the person from whom tax was realised was permissible. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:46:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186920 Section 29-A(3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act was construed as barring refund only to a person other than the one from whom tax was actually realised. Where that person expressly authorised the dealer to receive the refund on its behalf, and acknowledged that the tax had been collected from the dealer, the dealer was treated as an authorised agent rather than a distinct claimant. This reading avoids double recovery and prevents unjust enrichment. On those facts, the dealer was not regarded as an "other person" within the statutory restriction, and refund to the dealer on behalf of the person from whom tax was realised was permissible. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186920