Unjust enrichment governs excess tax refunds, requiring verification of who actually bore the tax before relief is granted.

Refund of excess tax under section 60 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act is subject to unjust enrichment, so the authority must first verify whether the burden was borne by the dealer or passed on to purchasers before granting relief. Where the record does not clearly show the source of payment, a limited reopening of the assessment is required to identify who paid the tax, ascertain the buyers from whom it was collected, and determine the proper recipient of any refund or adjustment. Refund is available only to the extent the excess tax was actually borne by the assessee, with corresponding relief to purchasers where the burden was shifted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund of excess tax under section 60 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. (ii) What directions should govern refund where excess tax was partly borne by the assessee and partly realised from purchasers.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund of excess tax under section 60 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The refund mechanism under section 60 is not confined to a bare mechanical repayment. The Tribunal held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is of universal application and is equally attracted when refund is claimed under section 60. Before granting refund or adjustment, the authority must be satisfied that the excess amount was not passed on to buyers or customers. Where the tax burden has been shifted, refund cannot automatically go to the dealer because retention of such amount would amount to unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund under section 60, and the assessee is not entitled to refund of amounts actually recovered from purchasers unless the legal burden has not been passed on.

Issue (ii): What directions should govern refund where excess tax was partly borne by the assessee and partly realised from purchasers.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessment records did not clearly show whether the entire excess tax had been realised from purchasers or whether a part had been paid from the assessee's own funds. It therefore directed a limited reopening of the assessment to ascertain the source of payment, identification of buyers from whom tax had been collected, and the entitlement of the assessee or such buyers to refund. The authority was also required to communicate the order to the concerned buyers and make refund or adjustment in accordance with the result of such verification.

Conclusion: The assessment was to be reopened for the limited purpose of determining the source of the excess payment and granting refund accordingly, with refund to the assessee only for the portion borne by it and refund to buyers where tax had been collected from them.

Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed to the extent of remitting the matter for limited reassessment and for refund in accordance with the principles of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of excess tax under section 60 is subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the refunding authority must determine whether the amount was borne by the assessee or passed on to purchasers before granting relief.

---