https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422936 Carpets sold by the assessee were treated as carpets in common parlance and as pile carpets on the facts, but the sales tax dispute turned on the distinction between rate and point of levy under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. Where first-point sales tax had already been paid on the same commodity, the same transaction could not be taxed again at the last point of sale merely because of a different classification. The text also notes support from restitution and unjust enrichment principles, including that tax collected under mistake should not be retained when it results in double recovery. The assessee's position therefore prevailed and the contrary orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2022 08:42:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422936 Carpets sold by the assessee were treated as carpets in common parlance and as pile carpets on the facts, but the sales tax dispute turned on the distinction between rate and point of levy under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. Where first-point sales tax had already been paid on the same commodity, the same transaction could not be taxed again at the last point of sale merely because of a different classification. The text also notes support from restitution and unjust enrichment principles, including that tax collected under mistake should not be retained when it results in double recovery. The assessee's position therefore prevailed and the contrary orders were set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422936