https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24695 The court held that the writ petition was not barred by limitation as it was filed within a reasonable time after a clarifying judgment. Rule 11 of the Excise Rules was deemed irrelevant to writ petitions under Article 226. The argument based on Article 226(3) of the Constitution was rejected due to its late presentation. Regarding the refund of excise duty and unjust enrichment, the court emphasized enforcing the Constitution and laws, directing the refund to the petitioner despite the concept of unjust enrichment. The case was certified for involving a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court to decide. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:05:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24695 The court held that the writ petition was not barred by limitation as it was filed within a reasonable time after a clarifying judgment. Rule 11 of the Excise Rules was deemed irrelevant to writ petitions under Article 226. The argument based on Article 226(3) of the Constitution was rejected due to its late presentation. Regarding the refund of excise duty and unjust enrichment, the court emphasized enforcing the Constitution and laws, directing the refund to the petitioner despite the concept of unjust enrichment. The case was certified for involving a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court to decide. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24695