https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73522 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. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73522 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73522