the legality or constitutionality of a tax, but said, “[w]e are convinced this procedure comports with due process under the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the subject as it relates to taxation. That Court has long held that postdeprivation remedies in the area of taxation can comport with due process.” Id. Even in cases where the taxpayer is challenging the constitutionality of a tax, failure to comply with the “State’s statutory postpayment refund demand procedure” set forth in the statute bars the court from hearing the taxpayer’s claim. Swanson, 335 N.C. at 680-681, 441 S.E.2d at 540-41; See also 47th Street Photo, Inc. v. Powers, 100 N.C. App. 746, 749, 398 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1990), disc. review denied, motion to dismiss allowed, 329 N.C. 268, 407 S.E.2d 835 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. State Of North Carolina, 330 N.C.
holding texas franchise tax constitutional holding a constitutional defense to a tax does not exempt a plaintiff from the mandatory procedure for challenging the tax set out in  105267 holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety holding that taxpayer was still required to go through tax refund procedure despite facial constitutional challenge to state intangibles tax holding contractor not responsible for use tax where tax exempt entity purchased the materials used