Refund of indirect tax through writ jurisdiction is barred without statutory compliance and proof that the burden was not passed on.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to secure refund of excise duty where the claimant has not complied with the statutory limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court also applied restitution principles under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, requiring proof that the tax burden was not passed on to others. As the claimant failed to establish retention of the amount at its expense or satisfaction of the conditions for exemption, no enforceable right to refund or restitution arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund of excise duty paid beyond the statutory period of limitation could be granted in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the petitioner established entitlement to restitution or refund on the basis of mistake of law and absence of passing on the duty burden.

Issue (i): Whether a refund of excise duty paid beyond the statutory period of limitation could be granted in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory refund mechanism was subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant to bypass the statutory scheme where the claimant has not established a subsisting legal right to refund and a corresponding legal duty on the State. Relief in writ jurisdiction cannot be used to avoid the legislative limitation period merely because the departmental remedy is time-barred.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund beyond the period permitted by Section 11B, and writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to defeat the statutory bar.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner established entitlement to restitution or refund on the basis of mistake of law and absence of passing on the duty burden.

Analysis: Restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 required pleading and proof that the petitioner suffered loss or legal injury and that the burden of tax had not been passed on to others. The Court applied the principle of unjust enrichment and held that indirect tax burdens are ordinarily passed on to consumers. Since the petitioner failed to show that it bore the ultimate burden or that the State retained the amount at the petitioner's expense, no enforceable right to restitution arose. The claim for exemption was also not established on facts because the necessary conditions could not be verified for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to prove entitlement to restitution or refund, and the claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant writ relief for refund of excise duty and upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim both on limitation and on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not order refund of indirect tax unless the claimant establishes a legal right to restitution, proof that the tax burden was not passed on, and compliance with the statutory conditions governing refund and exemption.

---