JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 8.1.1999 relating to the assessment year 1990-91 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant purchased Jute Twine Yarn (Sutli) for Rs. 7,07,390.42 from M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra and paid tax to the said party @ 6% to the extent of Rs. 49,302.73. The said party M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra challenged the rate of tax of Sutli. It was claimed that Jute Yarn (Sutli) was liable to tax @ 2%. Plea of M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra has been accepted by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.7.1993. The excess amount deposited by M/s Magan Mai Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra could not be refunded to it in view of provision of Section 29-A (1) of the Act. The applicant being a purchaser and the person concern from whom, the excess amount of tax had been realized, moved an application under Section 29-A (3) of the Act before the authority concern for refund of the excess amount. Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed, and the Appellate Authority directed to refund the excess amount realized from it. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the first Appellate Authority. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Tribunal has disallowed the claim of refund on the ground that the applicant had further sold its product after adding tax which had been realized from it, therefore, the amount could not be refunded. Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the view of Tribunal is erroneous. He submitted that Section 29-A (3) provides refund of the excess amount to the person from whom the dealer had actually realised the excess amount. He submitted that the applicant was the person from whom the excess amount had been realized by M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra, for which, there is no dispute, therefore, in view of Section 29-A (3) it was legally entitled for the refund of the amount. He submitted that the applicant was the person from whom the excess amount had been realized by M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra, for which, there is no dispute, therefore, in view of Section 29-A (3) it was legally entitled for the refund of the amount. He submitted that the reasons given by the Tribunal for refusing the refund is an extraneous consideration which cannot be made basis, inasmuch as, the provision does not say so. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal. 5. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. 6. "29-A. (1), (2) and (3) reads as follows : Section 29-A Procedure for disbursement of amount wrongly realised by dealer as tax—(1) Where any amount is realised from any person by any dealer, purporting to do so by way of realisation of tax on the sale or purchase of any goods, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8-A, such dealer shall deposit the entire amount so realised in such manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. (2) Any amount deposited by any dealer under sub-section (1) shall, to the extent it is not due as tax, be held by the State Government in trust for the person from whom it was realised by the dealer, or for his legal representatives, and the deposit shall discharge such dealer of the liability in respect thereof to the extent of the deposit. (3) Where any amount is deposited by any dealer under sub-section (1), such amount or any part thereof shall, on a claim being made in that behalf be refunded, in the manner prescribed, to the person from whom such dealer had actually realised such amount or part, or to his legal representatives, and to no other person : Provided that no such claim shall be entertained after the expiry of three years from the date of the order of assessment or one year from any date of the final order on appeal, revision or reference, if any, in respect thereof, whichever is later. Explanation.—The expression “final order on appeal, revision or reference includes an order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 32, Article 132, Article 133, Article 136 or Article 137 or by the High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution." 7. Explanation.—The expression “final order on appeal, revision or reference includes an order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 32, Article 132, Article 133, Article 136 or Article 137 or by the High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution." 7. Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax can be levied and collected without authority of law. Assessing Authority cannot collect the amount which is not legally due. Section 29-A (2) provides that any amount deposited by any dealer under sub-section (1) shall, to the extent it is not due as tax, be held by the State Government in trust for the person from whom it was realised by the dealer, or for his legal representatives. Section 29-A (3) says that where any amount is deposited by any dealer in sub section (1), such amount or any part thereof shall, on a claim being made in that behalf be refunded, in the manner prescribed, to the person from whom such dealer had actually realised such amount, therefore, in view of Section 29-A (2), State Government can retain the amount in trust for the person from whom, it was realised till claimed by such person. Under Section 29-A (3), amount has to be refunded to the person from whom, the amount has been realized. In the present case, applicant claimed refund on the ground that the amount which had been deposited by M/s Magan Mal Nemi Chand, Belanganj, Agra, in excess amount of tax due was realised by it and therefore, it should be refunded under Section 29-A (3). Fact of realisation of tax, which had claimed to be refunded, is not in dispute. Once it is not disputed that the excess tax was realised from the applicant there is no reason to deny the refund under Section 29-A (3). Section 29-A (3) does not require any further investigation and has not provided any other consideration to be seen for the refund of the amount. Therefore, Tribunal has illegally denied the refund on the consideration that the amount, which had been paid by the applicant, must have been included in the costs while selling the product, such ground is wholly irrelevant and extraneous consideration, which cannot be made basis for denial of the refund. 8. In the result, revision is allowed. Therefore, Tribunal has illegally denied the refund on the consideration that the amount, which had been paid by the applicant, must have been included in the costs while selling the product, such ground is wholly irrelevant and extraneous consideration, which cannot be made basis for denial of the refund. 8. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated 8.1.1999 is set aside and the order of First Appellate Authority is restored. Revision Allowed. ———