TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State Agricultural Marketing Board authorities. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the levy and collection of cess by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, post GST regime. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the cess amount, which has been wrongfully and illegally collected from the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have collected agriculture produce marketing cess from the petitioner, while bringing goods in the State of Assam. The petitioner is a manufacturing unit bringing goods from outside the State for manufacture. The petitioner neither buys nor sells goods in the market....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by the Finance (Taxation) Department, Government of Assam have come into effect was unconstitutional as well as ultra vires the provision of the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. 4. This Court further dealt with the question as to whether the petitioners therein would be entitled to the refund of the amount of the cess collected illegally by the respondent Board and the Market Committees. 5. This Court opined that on the ground that there were no specific pleadings made in the instant writ petitions that the goods which have been brought for re-sale, the burden of cess were not passed on to the customers of the petitioners, the question of the amount collected from the petitioners as cess during the period from 01.07.2017 to 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust enrichment as well as also the aspect as to whether any tax unjustly collected be permitted be retained. Paragraph nos.33 to 37 of the said judgment being relevant are quoted hereinunder:- "33. We are passing this order keeping in view the peculiar situation as in either event it was cinema-goers who had lost a huge amount. It would be travesty of justice if the owners of the cinema theatre become eligible to appropriate such a huge amount for their own benefit. To the aforementioned extent, doctrine of unjust enrichment may be held to be applicable. A person who unjustly enriches himself cannot be permitted to retain the same for its benefit except enrichment. Where it becomes entitled thereto the doctrine of unjust enrichment can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e State i.e. by the people. There is no immorality or impropriety involved in such a proposition. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. State represents the people of the country. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched." 35. In Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE & Customs this Court has held: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... women and children. We would request the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State to take up the responsibility in this behalf so that full, proper and effective utilisation of the amount in question is ensured. 28. In the said judgment, reference was also made to the judgment of the Nine Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited & Others vs. Union of India vs Others, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the claim for refund can only succeed if it is alleged and proved that the person from whom the tax was illegally collected had not passed on the burden of the duty to another person or other persons. In the instant case, there are no averments made in the writ petitions tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence as well as also it would seriously hamper the functioning of the Respondent Board in terms with the provisions of the Act of 1972. 31. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any direction(s) for restitution by the respondent Board of the cess so collected during the period from 01.07.2017 to 12.06.2020." 7. Taking into account that the issue involved in the instant batch of the writ petitions are pari-materia to the facts and issue involved in the writ petitions disposed of under judgment in the case of Bhatter Traders and Another (supra), this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petitions holding that the collection of the cess from the petitioners by the respondent Board or the Market Committees was unconstitu....