Sales tax incentive for continuing units became enforceable only when policy guidelines were published, with refund subject to unjust enrichment.

A continuing unit covered by the 1980 policy was held eligible for sales tax incentive under Part III of the 1989 policy from 10 June 1992, because the benefit became operational only when the guidelines were framed and published on that date. The unit remained liable for sales tax for the interregnum from 1 April 1991 to 9 June 1992, as neither policy covered that period. Refund could be considered only on proof that repayment would not cause unjust enrichment. The assessment orders were therefore to be revised, and the refund application reconsidered afresh.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a continuing unit of the 1980 policy was entitled to the sales tax incentive under Part III of the 1989 policy from 10 June 1992. (ii) Whether the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax for the interregnum between 1 April 1991 and 9 June 1992 and whether the refund claim was to be tested on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. (iii) Whether the impugned assessment orders required revision and the refund application required fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether a continuing unit of the 1980 policy was entitled to the sales tax incentive under Part III of the 1989 policy from 10 June 1992.

Analysis: The 1989 policy treated continuing units of the 1980 policy as eligible units under Part III. The incentive became workable only when the operational guidelines were framed and published on 10 June 1992. The policy language also showed that the benefits applicable to new units under Part I were extended to continuing units under Part III, subject to the conditions prescribed in the guidelines.

Conclusion: Yes. The petitioner was entitled to the sales tax benefit under the 1989 policy with effect from 10 June 1992.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax for the interregnum between 1 April 1991 and 9 June 1992 and whether the refund claim was to be tested on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The court held that the period from 1 April 1991 to 9 June 1992 was not covered by either policy. On refund, the court noted that the dealer had to establish, on evidence, that the tax collected from buyers would not result in unjust enrichment and that the amounts recovered from dealers would be returned to them.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable for sales tax for that period, and the refund claim could be examined only after proof that it would not result in unjust enrichment.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned assessment orders required revision and the refund application required fresh consideration.

Analysis: Since the petitioner was entitled to the 1989 policy benefit from 10 June 1992, the assessment orders had to be revised accordingly. Any further claim regarding the period of entitlement or the items covered under the exemption was left to the appropriate authority to decide in the light of the policy and the guidelines.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were directed to be reconsidered and revised, and the refund application was to be decided afresh.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of securing the 1989 policy benefit from 10 June 1992, while the remaining claims were left for determination by the statutory authority on reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a policy grants incentives to continuing units subject to operational guidelines, the benefit becomes enforceable from the date the guidelines are framed and the unit satisfies the policy conditions; refund claims must also withstand the test of unjust enrichment.

---