Forfeiture under tax law requires clear proof of collection or unjust enrichment; remand ordered for fresh consideration.

Forfeiture of tax amount under section 18AA requires clear material showing that the assessee collected tax from customers or was otherwise unjustly enriched. On the record considered, the authority found no reliable basis to show separate collection of sales tax in the sale bills, and the forfeiture order itself rested on uncertainty rather than proved facts. The order therefore could not be sustained on the existing material, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration, with liberty to the assessee to produce relevant evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order forfeiting the tax amount under section 18AA could stand in the absence of clear material showing that the assessee had collected tax from customers or had been unjustly enriched, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The material on record showed that, although the assessee had deposited amounts towards sales tax on gutka, the assessment records did not establish that sales tax had been separately collected in the sale bills. The forfeiture order itself proceeded on uncertainty, stating that it could not be ruled out that the sale price included the tax element and that indirect unjust enrichment had resulted. An order of forfeiture under section 18AA requires clear material showing unjust enrichment or other relevant facts justifying forfeiture. On the record before the authority and the Tribunal, there was no reliable basis to conclude that the assessee had collected tax or that refund was automatically due for all the years.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order could not be sustained on the existing material, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration with liberty to the assessee to produce relevant evidence.

---