TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside the order by which penalty had been levied on the dealer, the penalty so levied being due to the fact that the assessee had treated gallonage fee as a part of its turnover and had collected tax from its buyers which it had, admittedly, remitted to the State, although at the time of the collection, by reason of the judgment rendered by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition that if satisfactory arrangements are made by the dealer to refund the amount that the dealer had collected from its customers within 30 days, the amount of tax recovered as penalty would be refunded. 3.. While the good intentions of the officer who made the order is evident and is worthy of appreciation, nevertheless, an order of that kind is not permissible under the provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that case, held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine; that no person can seek to collect the tax or duty both ways, that a person cannot collect the duty from the purchaser at one end and also collect the same from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The apex Court also held that, that doctrine however, is not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib [1991] 83 STC 402 to mean that the section would have no application to cases where a dealer receives the amount of the tax from his buyers and remits the same to the State. Such action on the part of the dealer cannot, it has been held, bring him within the mischief of the provisions, as he cannot be said to have "collected" by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
