Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Mr. R. V. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the appellants - defendants, has raised a contention, which we would regard as the main contention raised on behalf of the defendants, that the trial court should not have decreed the amount because by doing so, it will lead to unjust enrichment of the plaintiffs who have collected the amount from their customers and who are not under an obligation to return the same to their customers. As far as this Bench is concerned, the denial of the refund of duty collected by the taxing department of the Government cannot be upheld on the ground of what is now known as the doctrine of unjust enrichment. We thought that this is well-settled as far as this court is concerned and as far as this Bench of two judges is concerned. Since the point has been argued with some persistence and vehemence, it has become necessary to refer to some of the decisions in this regard. In Parle Products Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 1362 of 1980), decided on July 21, 1986 [1987] 30 ELT 180, by one of us Jahagirdar J., the entire law on the subject till the date of the decision, which was July 21, 1986, has been reviewed. In that judgment, apart from the judgments of this court, the judgments of the Supreme Court on the same question have been noticed and it was held that the amount by way of excise duty, which is collected without the authority of law, must be refunded to the person from whom the same is collected. The doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be put up as a defence to a claim made on behalf of a citizen or a company against the State which has collected the tax without the authority of law.

7. One recent judgment of the Supreme Court was relied upon by learned counsel for the Union of India in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180 for the proposition that the doctrine of unjust enrichment has been revived despite the long line of decisions which have been taken note of in the judgment in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180. The judgment of the Supreme Court, which was relied upon, was State of M. P. v. Vyankatlal, . That judgment was examined. as this court was naturally bound to examine in details, and, ultimately, it was held in the Parle Products Ltd.'s case [1987] 30 ELT 180 as follows ([1988] 15 ECC 353, 369) :

"I am not convinced that the judgment in State of M. P. v. Vyankatlal, , revives the theory of unjust enrichment which has been consistently rejected in all the cases where claims for refund of the amounts paid by way of excise duty under a mistake of law had been upheld both by the Supreme Court and by this court."

8. It is true that the view taken in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180 was the view of a single judge, but the view taken in that judgment has been subsequently approved by a Division Bench of this court in Rapidur (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 161 of 1985) decided on 16th of October, 1986, by Dr. Couto J. sitting with Mehta J., [1987] 65 STC 400; [1987] 27 ELT 222. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore, , and naturally followed consistently by this court, was noticed and followed by the Division Bench in Rapidur (India) Ltd.'s case [1987] 65 STC 400; [1987] 27 ELT 222. An argument similar to the one which was advanced before this court in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180 was advanced before the Division Bench in Rapidur (India) Ltd.'s case [1987] 27 ELT 222. Indeed, it was argued before the Division Bench that the view taken by this court in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180 did not seem to be correct. The Division Bench examined this submission carefully and rejected the same. The Division Bench upheld the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vyankatlal's case, , made by this court in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180, not only on the basis of the reasons given in the judgment in the case of Parle Products Ltd. [1987] 30 ELT 180 but also, as we read the judgment of the Division Bench, on the basis that the distinction between a statute or a statutory order dealing with pricing is on a ground different from the ground on which a statute dealing with taxation stands. In the case of the latter, the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked.

15. In the judgments in Parle Products Ltd.'s case [1987] 30 ELT 180 and Rapidur (India) Ltd.'s case [1987] 27 ELT 222, all the judgments on the question of unjust enrichment have been referred to and examined Those judgments themselves have been, in turn, referred to and have been examined in detail in one or the other judgments culminating with the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rapidur (India) Ltd. [1987] 27 ELT 222. It is, therefore, not possible, as has been suggested, that some judgment of this court or the Supreme Court takes a contrary view and, therefore, this Division Bench is not bound by the judgment of the Division Bench in Rapidur (India) Ltd.'s case [1987] 27 ELT 222.