TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been passed on to the purchaser as found by the High Court and the levy having been held to be unconstitutional, the State would not be entitled to resist the claim of refund by application of doctrine of 'unjust enrichment'. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the directions of the High Court to refund the illegal levy collected from the respondents. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. - 9170 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 9-12-1998 - Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. [Order per : G.B. Pattanaik, J.]. - In these appeals the Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 31st of January, 1994 is under challenge and the question for consideration is whether in view of the Andaman and Nicobar I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court the other licensees also applied for refund to the Excise Authorities but as no action was taken thereon, writ petitions were filed. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Excise Authorities to pass final orders on the application for refund. The Excise Authorities then took steps for refunding the amount collected after complying with the formalities but before the refund vouchers could be finally signed, a notification was issued on Ist of September, 1984 by the President of India, promulgating the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Amendment) Regulation, 1984, authorising imposition of excise duty w.e.f. 24th of October, 1973 on Indian made foreign liquor notwithstanding any Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a special duty under the amended provisions and in view of the non obstante clause in Section 6 of the Amendment Regulation, notwithstanding the earlier judgment of the High Court striking down the notification dated 24th of October, 1973, the duty which had been collected can be held to be a valid levy as special duty under Section 31-A and, therefore the Excise Authorities had rightly refused the refund application and High Court committed error in allowing the Writ Petition. Though the learned counsel had raised the aforesaid contention while beginning his arguments but later on did not pursue the same being faced with the problem that subsequent to insertion of Section 31-A, no notification has been issued by the Administrator in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been fixed higher than its ex-factory price and the sugar factories were directed to credit the difference to a fund called "sugar fund". The validity of the said notification could not be sustained in the Supreme Court but all the same no refund was allowed on the finding that the burden in question had been transferred to the purchasers. In Mafatlal's case (1997) 5 SCC 536, the majority judgment dealing with the question of 'unjust enrichment' held : "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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
