Refund on finalization of provisional assessment cannot be denied by later procedural amendment or unjust enrichment

Refund arising from finalization of provisional assessment could not be denied by applying the amended Rule 9B(5) or the doctrine of unjust enrichment, because the refund right had already crystallized under binding High Court directions later left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. The subsequent procedural amendment could not defeat an accrued entitlement that had become due through final judicial determination. Section 11B(3) also recognized refund without a separate claim where the amount becomes payable by reason of an appellate or revisional order. The assessee was therefore not required to file a fresh refund application for the amount already due.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment could be denied by invoking the amended Rule 9B(5) and Section 11B on the ground of unjust enrichment, and whether the assessee was required to file a refund application after the refund had become due under the final judicial directions.

Analysis: The refund claim related to duty paid during the period of provisional assessment, which had been kept pending because of litigation and had ultimately attained finality on the strength of the High Court's mandamus, later confirmed by the dismissal of the Revenue's restoration petition by the Supreme Court. The amendment to Rule 9B(5) was held to be inapplicable to a matter where the right to refund had already crystallized and where the earlier judicial directions required determination and refund of the excise duty. The decision relied on the settled principle that, in the case of refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment and where higher court orders have already become final, the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the later amended refund procedure cannot be used to defeat the accrued right to refund. Section 11B(3) also recognized refund without a separate claim where refund becomes due by reason of an appellate or revisional order.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 9B(5) and the unjust enrichment requirement did not apply to deny the refund, and the assessee was not required to file a fresh refund application for the amount that had become due on finalization of provisional assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund that becomes due pursuant to final judicial directions and finalization of provisional assessment cannot be defeated by a subsequent procedural amendment or by invoking unjust enrichment, and the Revenue must grant such refund in accordance with the earlier binding s.

---