Restitution claim under Section 72 fails without proof of actual loss and absence of unjust enrichment in refund suits.

Refund claims under Section 72 of the Contract Act require pleading and proof that the claimant actually bore the levy and will not be unjustly enriched by repayment. On the facts, the plaintiffs failed to show loss or that the gallonage fee burden had not been passed on, so restitution was refused. On limitation, the Court held the refund suits were within time under Article 113 read with Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, treating discovery of the mistake of law as the relevant starting point; the concurring view differed on that point. The refund claims nevertheless failed because equitable restitution was unavailable without proof against unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of gallonage fee under the doctrine of restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872, notwithstanding the plea of unjust enrichment; (ii) whether the suits for refund were barred by limitation under Article 113 read with Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of gallonage fee under the doctrine of restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872, notwithstanding the plea of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Section 72 embodies an equitable rule of restitution, and a claimant seeking such relief must plead and prove that repayment is just and will not result in unjust enrichment. The burden does not lie on the State to disprove enrichment; rather, the plaintiff must show loss or injury and that the burden of the levy was not passed on in the ordinary course of business. On the facts, the plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved such loss, and the Court drew the inference that the fee component had been passed on to consumers or purchasers. Relief under Section 72 could not be granted to enable private gain from an amount not actually borne by the plaintiffs.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the suits for refund were barred by limitation under Article 113 read with Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Court held that the claim was not barred by limitation. In cases of mistake of law, the period under Article 113 would ordinarily run from discovery of the mistake, and the Bench accepted that the declaration in the earlier writ judgment furnished the relevant starting point for limitation. The plaintiffs' suits were therefore treated as having been filed within time. The concurring opinion, however, rested the dismissal on limitation by treating the mistake as discoverable with due diligence on each payment date.

Conclusion: The suits were held to be within limitation, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims failed because equitable restitution was unavailable without proof that the levy burden had not been passed on, and the appellate challenge was therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for refund of tax or fee under Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872 is an equitable claim that must be supported by pleading and proof that the claimant actually suffered loss and will not be unjustly enriched by the refund; if the burden has been passed on, restitution may be refused.

---