https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289335 Jurisdiction was treated as arising from material facts pleaded at Calcutta, including payment by cheque drawn on a Calcutta bank and the place where repayment was claimed. On the tax issue, liability under the Bihar sales tax charging provisions was treated as distinct from assessment machinery; the Continuance Order preserved the levy for the earlier period, and the Sales Tax Validation Act, 1956 validated levies and collections for the later period even where assessment orders were absent or set aside. The alleged mistake in payment was not proved, because the tax was legally due when paid, and the mistake-based claim was time-barred. The refund claim therefore failed. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 12:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289335 Jurisdiction was treated as arising from material facts pleaded at Calcutta, including payment by cheque drawn on a Calcutta bank and the place where repayment was claimed. On the tax issue, liability under the Bihar sales tax charging provisions was treated as distinct from assessment machinery; the Continuance Order preserved the levy for the earlier period, and the Sales Tax Validation Act, 1956 validated levies and collections for the later period even where assessment orders were absent or set aside. The alleged mistake in payment was not proved, because the tax was legally due when paid, and the mistake-based claim was time-barred. The refund claim therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289335