Writ jurisdiction and refund claims: refund cannot be sought as the sole relief and remains only a consequential remedy.

A writ petition seeking refund as the sole relief is not maintainable; refund in writ jurisdiction can be granted only as a consequential relief and not as the principal or only remedy. On that basis, the refund order in the writ proceedings could not stand. The Court did not decide the defence of unjust enrichment and left the refund applications to be determined by the competent sales tax authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking refund alone, without any other substantive relief, is maintainable in law.

Analysis: The Court held that refund can be directed in writ jurisdiction only as a consequential relief and not when refund is sought as the sole or principal relief. On that basis, the writ petition granting refund could not be sustained. The Court declined to pronounce upon the defence of unjust enrichment, leaving the refund applications to be decided by the competent sales tax authorities.

Conclusion: A writ petition confined to refund as the only relief was held to be not maintainable, and the appeal succeeded.

---