Unjust enrichment requires proof of tax collection from customers; unchanged sale prices defeated the refund objection.

Refund could not be denied on the basis of unjust enrichment where the record showed no evidence that the assessee had recovered tax from customers on sale of IMFL closing stock. The goods were tax-free before 26.6.2001 and taxable for a limited period thereafter, but the sale invoices and assessment material indicated that the sale price remained unchanged during both periods. In the absence of cogent evidence of any extra collection by way of tax, the contrary inference drawn by the Tribunal majority was treated as conjectural. The refund issue was therefore decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was liable to be denied refund on the ground of unjust enrichment for alleged collection of tax on sale of closing stock of IMFL during the taxable period.

Analysis: The stock of IMFL was tax-free before 26.6.2001 and became taxable for a limited period thereafter. The decisive question was whether the assessee had actually recovered any tax from customers or merely sold the goods at the same price. The assessment record and sale invoices showed that the sale price remained uniform during the tax-free and taxable periods, and there was no material to support an inference that extra consideration had been charged by way of tax. The finding of the Tribunal majority was therefore unsupported by cogent evidence and rested on conjectures and surmises. The reliance placed on a different case was also found inapposite because its factual basis was not comparable.

Conclusion: The allegation of unjust enrichment was not established, and the substantial question regarding refund was answered in favour of the assessee.

---