Unjust enrichment issue covered by Supreme Court ruling leaves no surviving substantial question of law in tax appeal.

Where the sole substantial question of law in a tax appeal on unjust enrichment was already settled by a binding Supreme Court ruling in favour of the assessee, no independent question of law survived for adjudication. The Gujarat High Court therefore held that the appeals could not be sustained, as the governing controversy had already been resolved against the Revenue's position and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax appeals could be sustained where the only substantial questions of law stood covered by the Supreme Court's decision on the same issue of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the tax appeals could be sustained where the only substantial questions of law stood covered by the Supreme Court's decision on the same issue of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appeals concerned the question of unjust enrichment, and the Court noted that the identical issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court had answered the controversy in favour of the assessee, no surviving substantial question of law remained for independent adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were brought to an end because the governing legal issue had already been settled against the Revenue's case and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sole substantial question of law in a tax appeal is covered by a binding Supreme Court ruling in favour of the assessee, the appeal cannot survive and must fail.

---