A.P.RAVANI - (1.)When the tax is paid with full knowledge of facts and law without any compulsion or undue influence or fraud would it be open to the tax payers to claim refund of the amount of tax so paid simply on the ground that the tax recovered is either found or declared to be unlawful? Moreover if the tax payer does not plead or prove that the amount of tax in question was E)aid either under a mistake or under coercion even then will he he entitled to get refund of the amount of tax only because later on it is discovered that the recovery of the tax in question was unlawful? Further question which has arisen in this matter is that which is considered unjust and improper by the court while sitting in Court Room No. W (i.e. while exercising writ jurisdiction). will the court be compelled to do the same thing because it is sitting in court Room No. A (i.e. while deciding appeal against a decree in a suit)? The question is when the court finds that a party is likely to be unjustly enriched the court may refuse relief in writ jurisdiction and there is no dispute that the court has discretion to refuse relief while deciding a writ petition. But on the same facts under almost similar circumstances while deciding an appeal against a decree passed in a suit will the court have no power to refuse the relief prayed for and/or to mould the relief in appropriate form so as to prevent unjust enrichment and secure restitution?
(2.)These are some of the questions which arise in this appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara on 5/05/1979 in Special Civil suit no. 121 of 1974. The trial court granted the declaration to the effect that the decision and action of the excise officers in levying and charging excise duty from the plaintiff-company on the value at which the products i.e. cameras were sold by the plaintiffs distributors to their customers and also on the paking cost was illegal ultra vires arbitrary and outside the powers and jurisdiction of the defendant. The trial court further ordered that the plaintiff-company do recover Rs. 5 21 260 from the defendant with cost of the suit.
(3.)The plaintiff-company is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Vadodara. The company is manufacturing photographic cameras and sells the same through its distributors M/s Agfa Gavaert India Ltd. Bombay.