Unjust enrichment bars refund of invalid luxury tax where taxpayers fail to prove the burden was not passed on.

Refund of luxury tax was denied because the claimants failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on to consumers. The court treated unjust enrichment as the controlling refund bar in respect of an unconstitutional levy and held that the burden lay on the petitioners to affirmatively show, through relevant pricing material such as unit cost and sale price, that the tax was not included in the price structure. In the absence of such evidence for the relevant period, the presumption that the tax had been collected from consumers was upheld and the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of luxury tax was barred on the ground of unjust enrichment because the petitioners were presumed to have recovered the tax from consumers.

Analysis: The refund claim arose after the levy of luxury tax had been struck down, but the enquiry was confined to whether the tax paid had in fact been borne by the petitioners or passed on to consumers. The petitioners did not furnish the unit cost, sale price, or other material necessary to demonstrate that the tax was not included in the price structure. The statutory obligation to disclose the price of goods sold and the tax realised separately supported the inference that the burden was meant to be shown distinctly. In these circumstances, the burden of proving non-collection for the relevant months remained on the petitioners, and the exception to unjust enrichment had to be strictly established.

Conclusion: The presumption that the luxury tax deposited had been collected from consumers was upheld, and the refund claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not succeed, though the respondents were left free to proceed afresh if any separately recoverable amount of collected but unpaid tax was found after due notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim for an unconstitutional tax, the claimant must affirmatively prove that the tax burden was not passed on to consumers, and failure to furnish the relevant pricing material justifies rejection of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment.

---