Refund claims require notice, opportunity, and fact-based scrutiny before unjust enrichment or limitation can be applied.

A refund claim should not be rejected on unjust enrichment unless the ground is specifically raised in the show cause notice and the claimant is given a fair opportunity to prove that the incidence of tax was not passed on. The governing refund framework also requires independent scrutiny of admissibility and limitation on the facts of the case, rather than a broad or mechanical reliance on earlier constitutional-law principles. Where the documentary record is not properly examined and the claimant is denied a chance to support non-passing of tax burden, the matter calls for fresh adjudication under the refund provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment without the ground being put to the claimant in the show cause notice and without affording an opportunity to substantiate non-passing of the incidence of tax; (ii) Whether the refund claim required fresh examination on limitation and admissibility in the light of the governing refund provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment without the ground being put to the claimant in the show cause notice and without affording an opportunity to substantiate non-passing of the incidence of tax.

Analysis: The refund was rejected principally on unjust enrichment, but that basis was not raised in the show cause notice and the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to produce evidence showing that the burden had not been passed on. The rejection of the chartered accountant certificate as secondary evidence did not amount to a proper adjudication of the issue. The record also showed that the documentary material had not been properly examined by the authorities.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment could not be sustained and the issue required reconsideration by the Original Authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim required fresh examination on limitation and admissibility in the light of the governing refund provisions.

Analysis: The governing refund framework required the claim to be examined for admissibility under the refund provision and then tested against the exception relating to unjust enrichment. The order also treated the claim as barred by relying on a broad reading of the earlier constitutional-law ruling, but that approach did not resolve the refund issue on the facts of the present case. The claim, at least for part of the period, was not shown to be time-barred on the materials before the Tribunal, and the nature of the proceedings under the refund provision also required consideration.

Conclusion: The refund claim required fresh adjudication on limitation and admissibility by the Original Authority.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for reconsideration, with the refund dispute left open for a fresh decision on the merits after proper examination of unjust enrichment and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be finally rejected on unjust enrichment or limitation without proper notice, opportunity, and fact-based examination under the refund provision; where such examination is lacking, remand is warranted.

---