https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779110 A subsisting High Court order remained binding in the absence of any stay, so the State could not retain tax collected without authority of law. The refund was directed under the statutory refund mechanism, subject to compliance with Section 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, furnishing of an indemnity bond, and the bar on unjust enrichment where the burden had been passed on to the buyer. The principal refund was therefore to be released immediately. The claim for interest was not decided finally at that stage and was kept pending, to abide by the outcome before the Supreme Court. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 08:34:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779110 A subsisting High Court order remained binding in the absence of any stay, so the State could not retain tax collected without authority of law. The refund was directed under the statutory refund mechanism, subject to compliance with Section 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, furnishing of an indemnity bond, and the bar on unjust enrichment where the burden had been passed on to the buyer. The principal refund was therefore to be released immediately. The claim for interest was not decided finally at that stage and was kept pending, to abide by the outcome before the Supreme Court. Case-Laws GST Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779110