https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80202 HC held that where excise duty is collected without authority of law, the State is bound to refund it, ordinarily to the person from whom it was collected. However, in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226, the court may mould relief on equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment, ensuring that the benefit of refund ultimately reaches those who bore the tax burden. The State has no preferential claim to decide application of such funds; the court may entrust implementation to the assessee, the State, or a third agency, including through schemes or price reductions. The matter was remitted to the Single Judge to apply these principles to the case facts. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80202 HC held that where excise duty is collected without authority of law, the State is bound to refund it, ordinarily to the person from whom it was collected. However, in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226, the court may mould relief on equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment, ensuring that the benefit of refund ultimately reaches those who bore the tax burden. The State has no preferential claim to decide application of such funds; the court may entrust implementation to the assessee, the State, or a third agency, including through schemes or price reductions. The matter was remitted to the Single Judge to apply these principles to the case facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80202