2001 (2) TMI 1012

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e doctrine of unjust enrichment should be invoked in these cases to sustain the order which had been set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside the order by which penalty had been levied on the dealer, the penalty so levied being due to the fact that the assessee had treated gallonage fee as a part of its turnover and had collected tax from its buyers which it had, admittedly, remitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... collected. In order to offset the effect of the refund, the authority had imposed a penalty with a condition that if satisfactory arrangements are made by the dealer to refund the amount that the dealer had collected from its customers within 30 days, the amount of tax recovered as penalty would be refunded.   3.. While the good intentions of the officer who made the order is evident and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467 wherein the majority of the learned Judges, who decided that case, held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine; that no person can seek to collect the tax or duty both ways, that a person cannot collect the duty from the purchaser at one end and also collect the same from the State on the ground that it has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eover, in this case, the State has yet another hurdle. Section 22(2) of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib [1991] 83 STC 402 to mean that the section would have no application to cases where a dealer receives the amount of the tax from his buyers and remits the same to the State. Such action on the part of the dealer cannot, i....