Provisional assessment finalisation and unjust enrichment: settled precedent supported refund and rejected the Revenue's objections.

Finalisation of provisional assessment on the basis of available records was treated as valid where no infirmity was shown in that method of assessment. The commentary notes that, on identical facts for the same period, earlier Tribunal precedent had already rejected the Revenue's challenge, including the objection that turnover tax was not an admissible deduction. It also records that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applied to bar refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment in those facts. The settled position was therefore maintained and the Revenue's objections failed on the substantive issues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could succeed in challenging the finalisation of provisional assessments on the grounds that the assessment was confined to selected depots, turnover tax was not an admissible deduction, and refund consequent upon finalisation was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The respondent's case had already been decided by the Tribunal on identical facts for the same period in respect of another plant. The impugned order had relied upon earlier Tribunal decisions holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessment in the facts of the case. The objection relating to turnover tax as a deduction had also been rejected by the lower appellate authority on the strength of binding precedent. The adjudicating authority had finalised the provisional assessment on the basis of the turnover reflected in the available records, and no infirmity was shown in that approach.

Conclusion: The Revenue's objections were rejected and the assessee succeeded on the substantive issues.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order upholding finalisation of the provisional assessment was sustained and the Revenue's appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where provisional assessments are finalised on the basis of available records and the issue has already been decided on identical facts, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar the consequential refund, and the Revenue cannot reopen the settled position merely by disputing the deduction treatment.

---