https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186921 Retrospective exemption did not entitle a dealer to retain tax already realised from purchasers, because Section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 continued to require deposit and refund through the statutory mechanism. However, amounts directly refunded to purchasers had to be considered while determining the dealer's liability, since Rule 107 and the anti-unjust-enrichment principle prevent double recovery where the tax burden has already been passed back. As the factual extent of refund to purchasers had not been specifically verified, fresh enquiry was required before final determination of liability. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:50:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186921 Retrospective exemption did not entitle a dealer to retain tax already realised from purchasers, because Section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 continued to require deposit and refund through the statutory mechanism. However, amounts directly refunded to purchasers had to be considered while determining the dealer's liability, since Rule 107 and the anti-unjust-enrichment principle prevent double recovery where the tax burden has already been passed back. As the factual extent of refund to purchasers had not been specifically verified, fresh enquiry was required before final determination of liability. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186921