Refund of excess CST after late C-Forms turns on who bore the tax burden, not technical routing through the seller.

Belated issuance of C-Forms in inter-State purchase transactions does not, by itself, defeat a refund claim where the purchaser ultimately bore the tax burden and the seller had already recovered and deposited the higher CST. The refund is not to be denied on a technical objection that the seller alone should seek it, because the relevant unjust enrichment inquiry focuses on who actually suffered the incidence of tax. The accompanying interest component paid on delayed tax liability was also required to be taken into account in the refund exercise, with the claim to be verified and processed along with statutory interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of excess CST paid on inter-State purchases after belated issuance of C-Form declarations, and whether the corresponding interest amount recovered from the petitioner was also refundable.

Analysis: The claim arose from the GST transition period, when C-Forms were not issued in time and the seller collected tax at the higher rate, later followed by issuance of C-Forms and forwarding of those forms to the seller. The Court applied the earlier binding view that, where the purchaser has borne the tax burden and the seller has already recovered and deposited the tax, refund cannot be denied on a hyper-technical objection that the seller alone should claim it. The Court treated the petitioner as the person who bore the ultimate burden and therefore the proper claimant for refund, while also noting the effect of the Supreme Court's treatment of the issue and the absence of a sustainable objection on unjust enrichment. As regards the interest component, the Court relied on the surrounding record, including the arbitral determination, to hold that the amount paid by the seller on delayed tax liability was to be considered in the refund exercise and that the refund claim should be verified and processed with statutory interest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to refund of the excess tax paid and to consideration of the interest amount in the refund proceedings, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was allowed to the extent indicated, and the authorities were directed to verify the C-Forms and pass orders for refund with statutory interest within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the purchaser has ultimately borne the tax burden and C-Forms are subsequently furnished, refund of excess tax cannot be denied on the ground that the seller deposited the tax or that the refund should technically be routed through the seller, as unjust enrichment bars refund to the person who has not borne the burden.

---