Related-person excise valuation fails where distributor is only a purchaser; writ relief remains available against unlawful levy.

Excise valuation under the related-person doctrine depends on whether the buyer acts on a principal-to-principal basis and whether there is mutuality of interest; sole distributorship or exclusive purchase does not by itself make the distributor a related person. On the facts stated, the distributor was treated as a purchaser, so levy of excise duty on its resale price was not justified and the collection was illegal. Writ jurisdiction was held available despite alternate remedies, prior withdrawal, delay, and estoppel where the levy lacked authority of law. The refund issue was not finally determined because unjust enrichment required Full Bench consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty could validly be levied on the sale price charged by the distributor as a "related person" of the manufacturer. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite alternate remedies, prior withdrawal of an earlier petition, delay, and estoppel, and whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty could validly be levied on the sale price charged by the distributor as a "related person" of the manufacturer.

Analysis: The assessable value under the excise law is the price at which the excisable goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee in wholesale trade, provided the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration. A distributor is not treated as a related person merely because he is the sole distributor or purchaser; the decisive test is whether the transaction is on a principal to principal basis and whether there is mutuality of interest in the business of each other. On the facts found, the distributor was in substance only a purchaser of the goods, and the agreement showed purchase of the total production at agreed prices, with liberty to resell at prices fixed by it.

Conclusion: The levy of excise duty on the distributor's resale price was not justified and the collection was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite alternate remedies, prior withdrawal of an earlier petition, delay, and estoppel, and whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The availability of appeal and revision did not bar writ jurisdiction where the levy itself was without authority of law and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. Withdrawal of an earlier petition did not defeat the present challenge in a tax matter on these facts. There is no estoppel against a taxpayer in a matter of illegal levy, and the delay objection was not accepted because the duty had been paid under protest and refund claims had been pursued. As to unjust enrichment, the Court noted conflicting authorities and treated the question as requiring consideration by a Full Bench.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable on the grounds examined, but the refund question on unjust enrichment was left for Full Bench consideration.

Final Conclusion: The duty was held to have been collected without authority of law, but the grant of refund was not finally determined and was directed to await authoritative resolution of the unjust enrichment issue.

---