Excess CST refund allowed where purchaser proved it bore the tax burden and unjust enrichment did not apply.

Refund of excess CST on inter-State purchases of high speed diesel was held maintainable where the purchaser proved by documentary evidence that it had borne the tax burden itself and had not passed it on. The Court rejected a narrow construction that refund was available only to the person from whom the tax was originally charged under the Haryana VAT framework. On the facts, the petitioner was the ultimate consumer, so unjust enrichment did not apply, and the authorities were directed to process the refund in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess CST paid on purchase of high speed diesel, and whether the refund claim could be rejected on the footing that the amount was refundable only to the person from whom it was charged under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The claim arose from inter-State purchases of high speed diesel for mining operations, where the purchaser had borne the higher tax because C-Forms were not issued in time. The Court noted that refund of CST is governed by State VAT refund provisions, but the rejection could not rest on a hyper-technical reading where the purchaser had established by documentary material that it had borne the tax burden. On the facts, the petitioner was the ultimate consumer and the tax burden had not been passed on to any other person, so the objection of unjust enrichment did not arise. The earlier authority relied upon by the Court supported processing of such refund claims in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be maintainable and the respondents were directed to process and grant the refund in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the petitioner established entitlement to refund of the excess tax burden actually borne by it, and the authorities could not refuse consideration on the ground that refund was confined to the original payer alone.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a purchaser in inter-State trade proves that it has borne the excess tax burden and has not passed it on, refund cannot be denied on a narrow or technical construction of the refund provisions, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not defeat the claim.

---