Invalid tax levy on photograph processing: assessment quashed, refund allowed subject to proof of actual payment.

A tax levy on processing and supply of photographs, having already been declared invalid, could not sustain the related assessment orders, which were quashed. Consequential refund would ordinarily follow once invalid assessments are set aside, but only on satisfactory proof that the tax was actually paid into the State coffers. The claim was treated as made within a reasonable time after the invalidity declaration and was not barred by laches. The plea of unjust enrichment was rejected because similarly placed dealers had been granted refund and the State showed no basis for differential treatment, though refund still depended on proof of payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment orders assessing tax on processing and supply of photographs could be quashed and consequential refund granted despite the objection of delay and the plea of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The levy on the relevant activity had already been declared invalid, and until that declaration was reversed it continued to be the governing law. Once the assessment orders were quashed, refund would ordinarily follow as a consequential relief, subject to proof that the tax had in fact been paid into the State coffers. The petition was filed within a reasonable time after the declaration of invalidity and was not barred by laches. The objection of unjust enrichment was rejected because similarly placed dealers had been granted refund and the State had not shown a basis for discriminatory treatment. The Court nevertheless required satisfactory proof of payment before refund could be ordered.

Conclusion: The objection of delay and unjust enrichment was rejected, the assessment orders were quashed, and the petitioner was held entitled to seek refund upon proof of payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax levy and the assessment made under it are found invalid, quashing of the assessment can be followed by consequential refund, provided the taxpayer establishes actual payment and the claim is made within a reasonable time; a blanket plea of unjust enrichment will not defeat relief where similarly placed taxpayers have been treated differently.

---