Final tax assessments bar refund claims based on another assessee's later relief, absent challenge in one's own proceedings.

Refund of tax paid under a final assessment cannot be claimed through writ proceedings merely because another assessee later obtained relief on a similar exemption issue. The court held that an assessee must challenge and have its own assessment set aside in accordance with law; a later favourable decision in another case does not reopen final proceedings or justify recovery by an alternative writ remedy. Alleged non-passing of the tax burden to consumers also did not help, because there was no undisputed material to support it and it could not override the finality of the assessments. The refund claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of sales tax could be claimed merely because another assessee obtained relief in respect of a similar exemption notification after the petitioners' assessments had become final; (ii) whether the alleged non-passing of the tax burden to consumers entitled the petitioners to refund.

Issue (i): Whether refund of sales tax could be claimed merely because another assessee obtained relief in respect of a similar exemption notification after the petitioners' assessments had become final.

Analysis: Refund cannot be claimed on the basis of a decision rendered in another assessee's case when the petitioners' own assessments were completed and had attained finality. The governing principle is that an assessee must challenge the assessment or order in his own proceedings and obtain relief there. A later decision in favour of another manufacturer does not reopen a final assessment, nor does it permit a refund by invoking writ jurisdiction as an alternative device. The cited Supreme Court authority was treated as laying down that final proceedings cannot be ignored and that a tax paid under a final order cannot be recovered unless that order is set aside according to law.

Conclusion: The claim for refund on the basis of another assessee's success was rejected and was against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-passing of the tax burden to consumers entitled the petitioners to refund.

Analysis: No undisputed material supported the contention that the burden had not been passed on. In any event, that circumstance could not overcome the decisive bar arising from the finality of the petitioners' own assessments and the absence of any challenge to those assessments in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The contention based on non-passing of burden did not assist the petitioners and was against them.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for refund once the petitioners' assessments had become final, and relief granted to another assessee could not be extended to them.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of tax paid under a final assessment cannot be claimed through writ proceedings merely because another assessee later obtained relief on a similar issue; an assessee must succeed or fail in his own proceedings and obtain setting aside of the assessment order before refund can be entertained.

---