1. Tax refund claim — Tax paid under protest — Requirement to prove non-passing of tax burden to consumers. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 946
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpa, K Ramaswamy, JJ.
BOMBAY TYRES INTERNATIONAL LTD., APPELLANT;
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 1909 of 1997, decided on July 11, 1997.
To claim a refund of tax paid under protest, the claimant must prove that the burden of the tax was not passed on to the consumers. Failure to produce such evidence disentitles the claimant to the refund.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise - Refund of tax - Burden of tax - Claim for refund of tax paid under protest - Requirement to prove that the burden of tax was not passed on to the consumers - Failure to produce material to this effect disentitles the claimant to the refund. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a refund of tax paid under protest. Despite a previous court order to produce evidence demonstrating that the tax burden had not been passed on to the consumers, the appellant failed to provide any such material.
Findings of Court:
The failure to produce material indicating that the burden of tax was not passed on to the consumers is sufficient to disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund.
Issues: Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of tax paid under protest in the absence of evidence that the tax burden was not passed on to the consumers.
Ratio Decidendi: A party claiming a refund of tax paid under protest must demonstrate that the tax burden was not passed on to the consumers; failure to provide such evidence is sufficient grounds to deny the refund.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
tax refunds
- unjust enrichment (Para 1)
-
tax refunds
Table of Contents
2. Claim for refund of tax paid under protest based on the precedent in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (Para 1 )
3. Failure to produce material indicating the tax burden was not passed on to consumers disentitles the appellant from claiming the refund. (Para 1 )
4. A refund of tax paid under protest is contingent upon proving that the tax burden was not passed on to consumers. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. What is the requirement for claiming a refund of tax paid under protest?
The claimant must produce material evidence to demonstrate that the burden of the tax was not passed on to the consumers. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. In spite of our earlier order dated 26-3-1997, the appellant has not produced any material to indicate that the burden of the tax was not passed on to the consumers so that the appellant could claim refund of the tax which was paid under protest on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India . [(1997) 5 SCC 536 : (1997) 89 ELT 247] In our opinion, this alone is sufficient to disentitle the appellant to claim the refund after the decision in Mafatlal. [(1997) 5 SCC 536 : (1997) (89 ELT 247]
2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
