https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387193 A prospective withdrawal of the turnover tax levy did not extinguish liability that had already crystallized for the disputed period under Section 3-G of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Because the tax liability arose before the ordinance withdrawal took effect, the later deposit date did not change the operative liability, and the administrative communication could not authorise refund of amounts already recovered. The claim for refund was therefore not maintainable, and the principle of unjust enrichment did not alter that result. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:55:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387193 A prospective withdrawal of the turnover tax levy did not extinguish liability that had already crystallized for the disputed period under Section 3-G of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Because the tax liability arose before the ordinance withdrawal took effect, the later deposit date did not change the operative liability, and the administrative communication could not authorise refund of amounts already recovered. The claim for refund was therefore not maintainable, and the principle of unjust enrichment did not alter that result. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387193