Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)The Orient Paper Mills Ltd vs The State Of Orissa And Others(And ... on 24 March, 1961
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal and Anr. the Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (supra); Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (supra); Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf , and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed as follows :
M/S. Amar Nath Om Parkash And Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1984
"The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases were based on the specific provisions in those Act but the same principles can safely be applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case also the respondents had not to pay the amount from their coffers. The burden of paying the amount in question was transferred by the respondents to the purchasers and, therefore, they were not entitled to get a refund. Only the persons on whom lay the ultimate burden to pay the amount would be entitled to get a refund of the same. The amount deposited towards the Fund was to be utilised for the development of sugarcane. If it is not possible to identify the persons on whom had the burden been placed for payment towards the Fund, the amount of the Fund can be utilised by the Government for the purpose for which the Fund was created, namely, development of sugarcane. There is no question of refunding the amount to the respondents who had not eventually paid the amount towards the Fund. Doing so would virtually amount to allow the respondents unjust enrichment."
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ogale Glass Works Ltd. vs The Union Of India on 14 July, 1975
They are also contrary to the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ogle Glass Works Ltd. v. The Union of India (supra) which has not been overruled as yet.
State Of Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vyankatlal & Anr on 28 March, 1985
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal and Anr. the Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (supra); Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (supra); Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf , and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed as follows :
Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc on 9 November, 1979
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal and Anr. the Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (supra); Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (supra); Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf , and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed as follows :
Sales Tax Officer, Banaras & Others vs Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf on 23 September, 1958
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal and Anr. the Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (supra); Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (supra); Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf , and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed as follows :
D. Cawasji And Co. Mysore vs The State Of Mysore And Anr on 26 September, 1984
In addition to the above Supreme Court decisions, we have a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ogle Glass Works Ltd. v. The Union of India - 1979 E.L.T. (J 468) where the learned Judges by two separate but concurring judgments considered the question as to whether the Petitioners in that case who had already collected from their customers the excess excise duty were entitled to recover the same from the Government, and by referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai and two earlier decisions of this Court reported in 1961 B.L.R. 318, State of Bombay v. Morarji and Paygonda v. Jingonda, held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the refund of the said duty since the Petitioners who had already recovered the said excess duty from their customers had no right to the same. The Court therefore rejected the claim for the refund of the duty. This decision of the Division Bench has so far not been overruled either by a Full Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, as stated earlier, the Supreme, Court, with respect, has taken a consistent view that those who have recovered the duty, tax, cess, levy, etc. from others have no right to claim its refund from the authorities. For in such cases, the excess amount paid whether under a mistake of law or fact, does not come from the pockets of those who have first paid it or from whom it is first recovered by the authorities. It comes from the pockets of others and is paid by the ultimate consumers. It is they alone who are entitled to rover it and the refund of it to the manufacturers/traders who pay it in the first instance amounts to their unjust enrichment.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
In addition to the above Supreme Court decisions, we have a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ogle Glass Works Ltd. v. The Union of India - 1979 E.L.T. (J 468) where the learned Judges by two separate but concurring judgments considered the question as to whether the Petitioners in that case who had already collected from their customers the excess excise duty were entitled to recover the same from the Government, and by referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai and two earlier decisions of this Court reported in 1961 B.L.R. 318, State of Bombay v. Morarji and Paygonda v. Jingonda, held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the refund of the said duty since the Petitioners who had already recovered the said excess duty from their customers had no right to the same. The Court therefore rejected the claim for the refund of the duty. This decision of the Division Bench has so far not been overruled either by a Full Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, as stated earlier, the Supreme, Court, with respect, has taken a consistent view that those who have recovered the duty, tax, cess, levy, etc. from others have no right to claim its refund from the authorities. For in such cases, the excess amount paid whether under a mistake of law or fact, does not come from the pockets of those who have first paid it or from whom it is first recovered by the authorities. It comes from the pockets of others and is paid by the ultimate consumers. It is they alone who are entitled to rover it and the refund of it to the manufacturers/traders who pay it in the first instance amounts to their unjust enrichment.