Refund of tax collected without authority of law survives res judicata and unjust enrichment objections, but interest was refused.

Tax collected without authority of law must be refunded to the person from whom it was collected, and an earlier unpressed refund prayer does not bar a subsequent claim where the issue was never adjudicated on merits; the Court held that res judicata did not apply. The defence of unjust enrichment was rejected as a ground to deny restitution. The refund was not confined to a blanket three-year period from the filing date, though it remained subject to the amount found refundable on the record. Interest on the refund was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were barred from claiming refund of Central Sales Tax on the ground that the refund prayer in the earlier writ petition had not been pressed and the matter was res judicata; (ii) whether the defence of unjust enrichment could defeat restitution of tax collected without authority of law; (iii) whether refund could be restricted to the three years preceding the writ petition; and (iv) whether interest on the refund was payable.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were barred from claiming refund of Central Sales Tax on the ground that the refund prayer in the earlier writ petition had not been pressed and the matter was res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier proceeding had not finally decided the refund claim, because the prayer for a writ of mandamus to direct refund was merely not pressed at admission and no rule was issued on that relief. The claim for refund was therefore not adjudicated on merits. The issues in the earlier writ petition and the present petitions were also not substantially identical, since the former principally challenged an assessment order while the present matters directly sought refund of tax collected without authority of law.

Conclusion: The bar of res judicata did not apply, and the refund claim was not forfeited by not pressing the earlier prayer.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence of unjust enrichment could defeat restitution of tax collected without authority of law.

Analysis: The governing principle was that tax levied or collected without legal authority must be refunded to the person from whom it was collected. The Court treated the Supreme Court's statement on refund of tax collected from customers as binding and held that the fact that the dealer may have passed on the burden to customers did not furnish a valid defence to deny restitution. The later decision relied on by the Revenue was distinguished on its facts and was not treated as overruling the earlier rule governing tax refunds.

Conclusion: The defence of unjust enrichment was not available to refuse refund of tax illegally collected.

Issue (iii): Whether refund could be restricted to the three years preceding the writ petition.

Analysis: The Court applied the approach that refund of tax paid under mistake of law is available if proceedings are brought within the permissible period after discovery of the mistake, and it followed the local High Court's prior interpretation that the refund itself is not confined to only three years from the date of filing if the writ is timely instituted from discovery. On the facts, the later petition was within the relevant period and the claim for refund was allowed to the extent found due.

Conclusion: The refund was not disallowed on the ground of a blanket three-year limitation from the filing date, though it remained confined to the amount found refundable on the record.

Issue (iv): Whether interest on the refunded tax was payable.

Analysis: Although the petitioners had been kept out of the money, the Court declined interest, taking note of the procedural history and the Department's possible understanding of the earlier order as affecting the refund claim.

Conclusion: Interest was refused.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded only in part: refund of the Central Sales Tax was ordered to the extent held due, but the claims were rejected insofar as they sought wider refund and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax collected without authority of law must be refunded, and neither non-pressing of an unadjudicated earlier prayer nor a plea of unjust enrichment can defeat the substantive right to restitution, subject to the court's control over the permissible period and ancillary reliefs.

---