Unjust enrichment in refund claims fails where accounts and bills show tax was not passed on to customers.

A refund claim was held not to be defeated by unjust enrichment where the Tribunal, on bills and accounts, found that the dealer charged the same rate throughout the relevant period and did not recover the disputed amount from customers as tax. Those findings were treated as pure findings of fact, and the revenue failed to show perversity, discrepancy, or any material to displace them. As the challenge depended on those unshaken factual conclusions, no substantial question of law arose and the refund finding remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding allowing refund was vitiated so as to give rise to a substantial question of law, particularly on the plea of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found, on the basis of the bills and accounts, that the dealer charged the same rate throughout the relevant period and that the amount claimed as refund had not been recovered from customers as tax. The High Court treated these as pure findings of fact, noting that the revenue could not show any perversity, discrepancy in the accounts, or material to displace the Tribunal's conclusion. On that basis, the plea of undue enrichment was rejected and no substantial question of law was seen to arise.

Conclusion: The finding on refund and unjust enrichment stood undisturbed, and the challenge by the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund dispute based on unjust enrichment does not raise a substantial question of law where the appellate tribunal's conclusion rests on unchallenged findings of fact from the accounts and bills showing that tax was not recovered from customers.

---