TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the trade tax collected in excess of two per cent on coal purchased for captive consumption, or whether the claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The petitioner claimed refund of the excess tax paid on coal used in its captive power generation, asserting that the electricity so generated was entirely consumed in manufacture and that the coal was purchased against the recognition certificate at the concessional rate. The respondents invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment, relying on the absence of pleadings or evidence showing that the tax burden had not been passed on to consumers. The Court accepted that the statutory scheme, including the refund restrictions under the trade tax law and the presumption reflected in excise jurisprudence, required the claimant to establish that the tax incidence had not been shifted. As the petitioner had not pleaded or proved that the burden was retained by it, and no material rebutted the presumption of passing on the tax, the refund claim could not be granted.
Conclusion: The claim for refund was not maintainable on the facts, as the petitioner failed to rebut unjust enrichment.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund of indirect tax or trade tax is not admissible unless the claimant affirmatively proves that the incidence of tax was not passed on to another person; in the absence of such proof, the doctrine of unjust enrichment bars restitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
