9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon'ble Om Prakash and Hon'ble S. L. Saraf, JJ. Since then Hon'ble Om Prakash J., has been transferred as Chief Justice of Kerala, hence this application has been transferred to this Court on nomination by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 3. The decision of the Division Bench is in Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and another v. State of U. P. and others 1997 UPTC 624, The controversy is regarding paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment which reads : "So far as the refund of the amount of ₹ 1,02.34,845.52 paise is concerned, the petitioner company may make a proper application for the refund thereof to respondent No. 2 who will consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove." 4. The petitioner made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of our discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, Inasmuch as we presume that the burden of the said tax has been passed by the petitioner to the consumers. No statement is made by the petitioner that the amount of purchase tax was not included in the sale price of the product of the petitioner or that it was not collected from purchasers/ consumers." This observation does go to support the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the applicant must make a categorical assertion that the amount of purchase tax is not included in the price of goods sold by the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Advocate-General also relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original goods, then whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable. In other words, whether the principle of. unjust enrichment can be extended to a case where what is sold is not the original goods but some other goods manufactured is from the original goods. Learned Additional Advocate-General contended that paragraph 9 is to be read with paragraph 5, and hence the contention of the learned counsel of the applicant is not correct. We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General. In Bhadrachalam case (supra), the original goods were bamboo and hardwood, which were consumed by the appellant for manufacturing paperboards. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that there is no questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
