TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. N.J. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the respondent Assam 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 ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 28.06.2017 as well as the Notification bearing No.FTX.56/2017/25 dated 29.06.2017 issued 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 ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Others vs. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema Private Limited, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 235 dealt with the doctrine of unjust 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 ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not possible to refund the amount to him for one or the other reason, it is just and appropriate that that amount is retained by the 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich according to it is a reputed civil society organisation and had been rendering good services to any section of the disadvantaged people and in particular 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 illegall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces, it is the opinion of this Court that directing the State to recover the said amount from the Respondent Board would not be in the interest of justice, equity, good conscience 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....