https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42922 Refund of indirect tax under Section 72 of the Contract Act requires proof of payment under mistake or coercion, legal injury from non-refund, and that the claimant actually bore the tax burden. Where the duty has been passed on to consumers, refund would result in unjust enrichment and cannot be granted to the assessee. The Court also noted that the refund suit was not maintainable on the facts and that limitation would be governed by Article 113 read with Section 17 of the Limitation Act, while refunds before excise authorities would be subject to the excise rules. The trial court decree was reversed and the refund claim dismissed. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:43:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42922 Refund of indirect tax under Section 72 of the Contract Act requires proof of payment under mistake or coercion, legal injury from non-refund, and that the claimant actually bore the tax burden. Where the duty has been passed on to consumers, refund would result in unjust enrichment and cannot be granted to the assessee. The Court also noted that the refund suit was not maintainable on the facts and that limitation would be governed by Article 113 read with Section 17 of the Limitation Act, while refunds before excise authorities would be subject to the excise rules. The trial court decree was reversed and the refund claim dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42922