Unjust enrichment does not bar refund when provisional assessment follows a court direction and refund is otherwise undisputed.

Refunds arising from a court-directed provisional assessment cannot be denied by invoking unjust enrichment where the refund claim is otherwise undisputed on merits. The provisional assessment in issue was made pursuant to a High Court mandamus, and the related order contemplated the consequences of finalisation, including interest depending on whether differential duty was payable or refundable. Applying Mafatlal Industries, the tribunal held that statutory refund restrictions do not defeat refunds already ordered by a court or by a final judicial direction. Bussa Overseas was distinguished on facts. The doctrine of unjust enrichment therefore did not apply, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment could be invoked to deny refund when the duty had been provisionally assessed pursuant to a writ direction of the High Court.

Analysis: The refund claim was not disputed on merits. The only controversy was the applicability of unjust enrichment. The provisional assessment had been ordered under the High Court's mandamus, and the order itself contemplated the consequences of finalisation, including payment of interest depending on whether differential duty was payable or refundable. In such circumstances, the refund arose from a judicial direction and not from an ordinary statutory provisional assessment based on want of information. The reasoning in Mafatlal Industries was applied to hold that statutory refund restrictions cannot defeat refunds already ordered by courts or final statutory orders, as judicial directions cannot be nullified by the bar of unjust enrichment. The decision in Bussa Overseas was distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund in the present case, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Refunds arising from a court-directed provisional assessment or other final judicial direction cannot be denied by invoking unjust enrichment.

---