Unjust enrichment bars excise duty refund when the higher price was passed on to consumers and no mistake of law was shown.

Writ relief for refund of excess excise duty was refused because Article 226 discretion must serve public good and cannot be used to let a petitioner keep both the higher price recovered from consumers and a refund from the Government. The claim was not based on payment under mistake of law, so the refund cases allowing recovery on that basis did not apply. The Court treated any refund as belonging, if at all, to the actual consumers and found that payment to the petitioner would amount to unjust enrichment. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to refund in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty could be granted in writ jurisdiction when the petitioner had recovered the higher price from consumers and the payment was not shown to have been made under a mistake of law.

Analysis: The Court held that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised for public good and not to permit a petitioner to retain both the higher price collected from customers and a refund from the Government. The claim did not rest on payment under mistake of law, unlike cases where refund was allowed on that basis. Granting refund would result in unjust enrichment, particularly when the amount, if refundable at all, would belong to the actual consumers and not to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund of the excess excise duty in writ jurisdiction.

---