Unjust enrichment bars writ relief where tax was passed on and statutory refund restrictions remain in force.

Article notes that Article 226 relief to condone delay in tax appeals cannot be used to secure refund-related advantage where the dealer had already collected the disputed tax from purchasers. The doctrine of unjust enrichment bars indirect relief that would shift the burden back to the public exchequer when the claimant has not borne the tax incidence. Section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act reinforces this position by denying refund of an invalid levy unless the dealer proves the tax was not passed on. The commentary also notes that an appellate authority, as a statutory creature, cannot disregard a tax entry still on the statute book.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 to have the delay in filing appeals condoned so as to pursue challenge to the higher rate of tax under entry 158(a), and whether such relief could be granted in the face of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The petitioner had collected the tax from purchasers at the disputed higher rate and, therefore, any indirect relief enabling appellate scrutiny was intended to facilitate refund despite passing on the burden. Relief under Article 226 cannot be used to secure an unjust benefit where the claimant has not borne the tax burden. Section 33-BB further provides that no refund is payable on a levy held invalid unless the dealer proves that the tax was not collected from the purchaser, making any possible appellate relief ineffective for the purpose of refund. In addition, the appellate authority, being a creature of statute, could not ignore entry 158(a) or grant relief by treating it as unconstitutional while it remained on the statute book.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the writ relief sought, and the challenge to the refusal to entertain the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to obtain relief that would result in unjust enrichment, and where the statute bars refund unless the tax burden has not been passed on, indirect appellate relief is futile and will not be granted.

---