Retrospective application of unjust enrichment bar rejected for refund claims under provisional assessment.

The amended Rule 9B(5) introducing the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply retrospectively to refund claims arising from provisional assessments made before the amendment. The Court followed its earlier view that the 1999 amendment was intended to address the prior difficulty in refund matters, but it did not govern pre-amendment transactions merely because finalisation occurred later. Since the assessee's entitlement to refund had already attained finality and only quantification remained, the refund claim was maintainable and the amended bar could not be invoked on those facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied to refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under the amended Rule 9B(5), and whether such amended provision governed refund claims in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The only substantial question of law related to the applicability of the amended Rule 9B(5). The Court followed its earlier decision which had held that the amendment introduced in 1999 was intended to overcome the difficulty created by the earlier position, but that the amended sub-rule was not retrospective. Refund claims arising from provisional assessments made before the amendment were therefore not governed by the amended bar merely because finalisation took place later. The Court also noted that the entitlement to refund had already attained finality, leaving only quantification.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 9B(5) did not operate retrospectively so as to attract the bar of unjust enrichment on the facts of the case, and the refund claim was maintainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment introducing the bar of unjust enrichment in refund matters under provisional assessment does not apply retrospectively to transactions governed by the earlier regime unless the statute clearly so provides.

---