TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the excise duty collected from the licensees became refundable notwithstanding the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Amendment) Regulation, 1984; (ii) Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment barred refund of the amount.
Issue (i): Whether the excise duty collected from the licensees became refundable notwithstanding the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Amendment) Regulation, 1984.
Analysis: The levy earlier held invalid remained unconstitutional, and the attempted reliance on section 31-A of the Amendment Regulation could not sustain the collection because the prerequisite notification for levy under that provision had not been issued. The non obstante provisions in the amendment did not validate the realised amount in the absence of compliance with the statutory condition for imposing the special duty.
Conclusion: The duty collected from the licensees remained refundable.
Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment barred refund of the amount.
Analysis: The doctrine applies where the payer has shifted the burden to purchasers and would then recover the same amount again from the State. On the findings recorded, there was no material showing that the excise duty had been recovered from customers, and the burden had not been passed on. In such circumstances, the equitable bar of unjust enrichment could not defeat the claim for refund of an unconstitutional levy.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the direction to refund the illegal levy was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund of an unconstitutional levy cannot be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment unless it is shown that the burden of the levy was actually passed on to purchasers or consumers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
