Unjust enrichment and refund: retained tax credit must be returned with 12% interest if refund is ultimately due.

Refund credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on an unjust enrichment objection remained subject to the Tribunal's pending determination of that issue. The commentary states that, if unjust enrichment is ultimately not established, the amount must be returned to the petitioner and cannot be retained in the Fund. Because the sum had stayed with the Revenue from the date of deposit, the petitioner was also treated as entitled to interest at 12% per annum for the retention period, rather than the lower statutory rate relied on by the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund-related relief and interest when the service tax amount had been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment, while the Revenue's appeal on that question remained pending.

Analysis: The refund amount was already in the hands of the Revenue, and the stay application in the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal had been rejected. The only live controversy was whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment, a question left for decision in the pending appeal. The Court held that, if the Tribunal ultimately finds that unjust enrichment is not established, the amount must be refunded to the petitioner and not retained in the Consumer Welfare Fund. Since the amount had remained with the Revenue from the date of deposit, the petitioner was also held entitled to interest at 12% per annum for the period of retention, instead of the statutory rate invoked by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refunded sum from the date of deposit till payment, and the refund issue was left to be governed by the Tribunal's determination on unjust enrichment.

---