Unjust enrichment bars personal tax refund where consumers bore the burden; refund directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The court held that a dealer could not receive a tax refund personally where the tax had already been collected from consumers, because payment to the dealer would amount to unjust enrichment. Although tax collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the State, the consumers who bore the burden were innumerable and unidentifiable. In those circumstances, the proper course was to protect consumer interests by directing the refundable amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund rather than to the dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was entitled to have the refunded tax amount paid to it, or whether the amount collected from consumers had to be redirected to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The refundable amount arose from assessment year 1974-75 and had in fact been collected by the dealer from the persons to whom goods were supplied. In exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a direction to pay that amount to the dealer would result in unjust enrichment. At the same time, tax collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the State. Since the consumers from whom the burden was collected were innumerable and unidentifiable, the proper course was to protect their interest by directing the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the State.

Conclusion: The dealer was not entitled to receive the refund personally; the refundable amount was to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---