Holding

The Court held that the purchase tax collected by the appellants must be deposited with the government treasury, as retaining it amounts to unjust enrichment and is not permissible notwithstanding the sales‑tax exemption.

Summary

The appellants, Jay Vee Rice and General Mills, were granted exemption from sales tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act but collected purchase tax on paddy as part of the price received from the District Food and Supplies Controller (DFSC). The assessing authority held that the purchase tax so collected must be deposited with the government treasury, a view upheld by the first appellate authority and the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The appellants argued that the exemption certificate covered both sales and purchase tax, relying on the amended wording of Section 13‑B. The Supreme Court examined the note in the 1996 Notification and held that the purchase tax was indeed collected and its retention would constitute unjust enrichment, which is impermissible even if the tax’s legality is contested. Consequently, the Court ordered the appellants to remit the purchase tax to the State and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants collected purchase tax on paddy from the DFSC as part of the procurement price and, if so, what is the effect of such collection.
Whether the State of Haryana is empowered to recover the purchase tax despite the appellants’ exemption from sales tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Legislation cited

Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973s. 13-B
Haryana Government Notification dated 17.10.1996
Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985s. Clause 2(i), s. Schedule III Note (i)
Haryana Sales Tax Rules, 1975s. Rule 28A, s. Rule 28A(2k)
Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003

Subjects

purchase taxsales tax exemptionunjust enrichmenttax collectionHaryanarice procurementexemption certificatestate tax recovery

Judgment

•
,. . . JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v.STATE OF 1041
··- ... .• ; .... - .·[2010) 1.1 S.C.R 1040 .. J .·: J . ; .• ::.·

HARYANA AND ORS.

A - M/S. JAY VEEiRICEAND;GENERAL MILLS,.,.·:: - · granted exemption but· in the assessment order, it was, A
-.:--.i:· ·,-:~>!··~ ;V.-:; ~ - . :,.:~;cc•::;_::;-:_,,"'.:-; . ·.; 1 ~/' ! held that since they had collected purchase tax on paddy -·
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. from DFSC as part of procurement price, they were
-· ., --.. : " ' , •, . i - . - -

: (Civil Appeal No.823E)_of_2010) . ,', '' required to deposit the tax so collected in the government
v '• '_:_, \;- '.._: •• •~ ' ',IJ ··~. t.·.: ~:·.'._i,;·_, ~.. ; ! .~.- ..,:•. ;> ,,,;-;,·~.: treasury. _The order of assessment was upheld by the first
SEPTEMBER 23, 20~0 appellate authority and the tribunal. The assessees' filed ·s
B writ petitions before' ttie High c·ourt \vhich were
( .. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND. ANIL
dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessees filed the. instant
. R. DAVE, JJ.] appeals.·· -
' .. - .. ~.--::.,:.-:·.\ ;''!·-~·~--< - ~- ~- :-,:.';~.'/'.
Tax/Taxation:. Unjust enrichment - Supply of rice - Dismissing th7_ ;;ippe~l~~,t~e Court --..________ C
C Exemption granted to assessee-supplier from payment of . ' . ' i! . .: .. _ ' . ,.· . ' -. t .- • ' • • -. • •• • •

sales tax :::. While supplying rice, assessee collected HELD: 1. Note (i) in the Schedule Ill to"the Notification •
purchase tax .:.. Retention of purchase tax by the assessee - dated 17.10.1996 makes it clear that the assessees while
Permissibility - Held: Tax so collected is required to be supplying rice. to' DFSC collected purchase tax amongst
deposited Jn the government treasury - Retention of such other things by way of the procurement price; Since the
D purchase tax would amount to unjust enrichment which is not assessees had collected the purchase fax whiie D
permissible - Haryana Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - r.28A -' supplying rice to DFSC, they were required to deposit the
' , Haryana Government Notification dated 17. 10. 1996 - same in the government exchequer and there could be
Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985 - Clause 2(i); no justification _for them to_ retain the purcha~e 1tax and
__ __ Schedule Ill, Note (i) - Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. appropriate the same to their own use. Retention _of such
purchase tax collected by the appellants would amount E
E Assessee~companies were engaged in the business to unjust enrichment which· is not 'permissfble.· Even
of purchase of paddy and manufacture of rice therefrom. when the· legality of a tax is challenged successfully; ·
·They were registered under the Haryana General Sales t_here_can be no ques_tion of the said tax being retained
Tax Act,1 1973 and.were granted exemption from. the by the dealer/manufacturer; notwithstanding its illegality.
payment of sales tax under Rule 28A of the Haryara In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the · F
F General Sales Tax Rules, 1975_for a period of seven years court is not. required to go into the other issue as to
with effect from 3.10.1995. By Haryana Government whether or not there ·c'ould have been levy of purchase
Notification dated 17.10.1996, an amendment was made tax on .tti_e purchase· of. paddy in case of exempted· units.
in Schedule Ill to the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy The question_ is kept open to be decided in an appropriate
Order, 1985. By ,virtue of the said amendment, the cas'e)[Paras 17, 18, 25, 26][1046-H; 1047~A~8;"1'65o~c-E] G
·- .... G appellants while supplying--rice to District Food and r .. ~ ....

Supplies Controller (DFSC) received price of rice Mafatlal Industries Ltd.· and Others v. Union of India and
inclusive of_ purchase tax. The assessing authority Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536; Sahakari Khand Udyog Manda/ Ltd.
completed assessment for the year 1996-97. While doing v. CCE & Customs (2005) 3 SCC 738; Orient Paper Mills Ltd.
so, no purchase tax was levied since assessee were v. State ofOrissa & Ors. 'AIR.1961SC1438; GodfreyPhillips
H
H 1040

I
r
•
,. . . JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v.STATE OF 1041
··- ... .• ; .... - .·[2010) 1.1 S.C.R 1040 .. J .·: J . ; .• ::.·

HARYANA AND ORS.

A - M/S. JAY VEEiRICEAND;GENERAL MILLS,.,.·:: - · granted exemption but· in the assessment order, it was, A
-.:--.i:· ·,-:~>!··~ ;V.-:; ~ - . :,.:~;cc•::;_::;-:_,,"'.:-; . ·.; 1 ~/' ! held that since they had collected purchase tax on paddy -·
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. from DFSC as part of procurement price, they were
-· ., --.. : " ' , •, . i - . - -

: (Civil Appeal No.823E)_of_2010) . ,', '' required to deposit the tax so collected in the government
v '• '_:_, \;- '.._: •• •~ ' ',IJ ··~. t.·.: ~:·.'._i,;·_, ~.. ; ! .~.- ..,:•. ;> ,,,;-;,·~.: treasury. _The order of assessment was upheld by the first
SEPTEMBER 23, 20~0 appellate authority and the tribunal. The assessees' filed ·s
B writ petitions before' ttie High c·ourt \vhich were
( .. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND. ANIL
dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessees filed the. instant
. R. DAVE, JJ.] appeals.·· -
' .. - .. ~.--::.,:.-:·.\ ;''!·-~·~--< - ~- ~- :-,:.';~.'/'.
Tax/Taxation:. Unjust enrichment - Supply of rice - Dismissing th7_ ;;ippe~l~~,t~e Court --..________ C
C Exemption granted to assessee-supplier from payment of . ' . ' i! . .: .. _ ' . ,.· . ' -. t .- • ' • • -. • •• • •

sales tax :::. While supplying rice, assessee collected HELD: 1. Note (i) in the Schedule Ill to"the Notification •
purchase tax .:.. Retention of purchase tax by the assessee - dated 17.10.1996 makes it clear that the assessees while
Permissibility - Held: Tax so collected is required to be supplying rice. to' DFSC collected purchase tax amongst
deposited Jn the government treasury - Retention of such other things by way of the procurement price; Since the
D purchase tax would amount to unjust enrichment which is not assessees had collected the purchase fax whiie D
permissible - Haryana Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - r.28A -' supplying rice to DFSC, they were required to deposit the
' , Haryana Government Notification dated 17. 10. 1996 - same in the government exchequer and there could be
Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985 - Clause 2(i); no justification _for them to_ retain the purcha~e 1tax and
__ __ Schedule Ill, Note (i) - Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. appropriate the same to their own use. Retention _of such
purchase tax collected by the appellants would amount E
E Assessee~companies were engaged in the business to unjust enrichment which· is not 'permissfble.· Even
of purchase of paddy and manufacture of rice therefrom. when the· legality of a tax is challenged successfully; ·
·They were registered under the Haryana General Sales t_here_can be no ques_tion of the said tax being retained
Tax Act,1 1973 and.were granted exemption from. the by the dealer/manufacturer; notwithstanding its illegality.
payment of sales tax under Rule 28A of the Haryara In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the · F
F General Sales Tax Rules, 1975_for a period of seven years court is not. required to go into the other issue as to
with effect from 3.10.1995. By Haryana Government whether or not there ·c'ould have been levy of purchase
Notification dated 17.10.1996, an amendment was made tax on .tti_e purchase· of. paddy in case of exempted· units.
in Schedule Ill to the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy The question_ is kept open to be decided in an appropriate
Order, 1985. By ,virtue of the said amendment, the cas'e)[Paras 17, 18, 25, 26][1046-H; 1047~A~8;"1'65o~c-E] G
·- .... G appellants while supplying--rice to District Food and r .. ~ ....

Supplies Controller (DFSC) received price of rice Mafatlal Industries Ltd.· and Others v. Union of India and
inclusive of_ purchase tax. The assessing authority Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536; Sahakari Khand Udyog Manda/ Ltd.
completed assessment for the year 1996-97. While doing v. CCE & Customs (2005) 3 SCC 738; Orient Paper Mills Ltd.
so, no purchase tax was levied since assessee were v. State ofOrissa & Ors. 'AIR.1961SC1438; GodfreyPhillips
H
H 1040

I
r
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U. P & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 515 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1997) 5 sec 536 relied on Paras18, 21
B
(2005) 3 sec 738 relied on Para 19
AIR 1961 SC 1438 relied on Paras 20, 21
(2005) 2 sec 515 relied on Paras 22, 25
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8236 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 14.01.2009 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
D 15187 of 2006.

With

C.A. Nos. 8237, 8238, 8239, 8240, 8241, 8242, 8253, 8244,
8245, 8246 & 8247 of 2010.
E
Kavin Gulati, Suresh Kumar Yadav, Rashmi Singh,
Kamlendra Mishra, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellant.

Anoop G. Choudhari, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Teotia
F for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Since all these appeals raised similar issues and all of
G them were taken up together for final hearing, they are being
disposed of by this common jud~ment and order.

3. The questions which fall for consideration in these
appeals are mainly two-fold. The first issue that arises for our
H
JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF 1043
HARYANA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

consideration is whether in light of the facts and circumstances A
of the present case and upon true and correct interpretation of
construction of Note (i) to Schedule Ill under Clause 2(i) of the
Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as "Levy Order"), the appellants/dealers had
collected purchase tax on paddy from the government or its B
agencies alongwith procurement price of levy fixed under the
said Levy Order and if so, what would be the effect of such
collection.

4. There is a second issue which arises for our
consideration, i.e., as to whether the State is empowered to C
recover certain amounts as purchase tax in light of the scheme
envisaged under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also keeping in view
that no sales tax was paid, as payment of the same was
specifically excluded. D

5. The appellants-companies are engaged in the business
of purchase of paddy and manufacture of rice therefrom. The
assessees are registered under the Haryana General Sales
Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also E
under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The assessees
were granted exemption from the payment of sales tax under
Rule 28A of the Haryana Sales Ta.x Rules, 1975 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules") for a period of seven years with
effect from 3.10.1995 to 2.10.2002 under Exemption F
Certificate, which has been attached with the appeals. By virtue
of this Exemption Certificate issued under the Haryana Sales
Tax Rules, 1975, the appellants were exempted from payment
of sales tax.

6. However, by virtue of Note (Q of the Haryana Government G
Notification dated 17.10.1996, which was incorporated vide
an amendment to clause 2(i) of Schedule Ill of the Rules, the
appellants while supplying rice to District Food and Supplies
Controller (hereinafter referred to as "DFSC") collected
H
1044 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS•· [2010] 11 S.C.R,. .
i •. . . , ,, . • . . . :;:_c. . .. . . .· .• '// . I
A purchase tax amo.ng other thing~ by way of price reteived ...... · i
from the DFSC. The aforesaid Note (i) by virtue of which such l
tax was collectea reads as follows:- • · '. ·;
·.';L-i: .i~ .. __-;: :~i.:·-~i ·; .. _, - .,!: ·. :.·. -;;_ _ I .
, . ., , "Note (i): The above prices of rice are for net rate of naked
, ._grai_ns inclusive of purchasetax (emphasis added) and
B
. ·mandi charges of paddy' and depreciation of gunny bags
used for packing paddy but exclusive of cost. of gunny bags
. and taxes, if any, after ex-mill stage of rice."

.. · 7. Therefore, although the appellants were exempted from
C . the payment of sales tax, but since they had collected purchase
tax on paddy from the DFSC as. part of the price received
from the DFS.C, the respondents took up a plea that they are
required to pay purchase tax so collected as tax or as .the
amount as tax collected and the amount which since collected
o was required to be deposited in the government treasury. , ,-

", · 8. The contention of the appellants on the other hand,
however, was that the appellants were granted exemption from
the payment of both sales as also purchase tax which would
E be amply clear from a harmonious reading of .Section_ 13-B of
the Act and also Rule 28A, sub-Rule 2(k} of the Rules. "

Se~tion._...13-B of the Act reads as follows:c i -- . .-.:

"Power to Exempt Certain Class of Industries-The State
F ..... ' Government may, 1if satisfied that it is necessary or
.· expedient so to do in the 'interest of industdal
• ''··• developme/1t of the' State/ exempt such class· of
· '. •:.""industries 'from payment of sales tax,· for such period and
· subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."·
G Rule -28-A (2k) "reads as follows:-
.i

·•• .Sub~rule 2(k} - "exemption certificate means a certificate
granted in form S. T.-73 by the Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner of the district to the eligible industrial unit
H . holding eligibility certificate which entit~~s the unit to avail of
JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF 1045
HARYANA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

exemption from the payment of sales or purchase tax or A
both, as the case may be."

9. It is the case of the appellants that since there was a
difference between the original Section 13-B of the Act as
inserted on 08.09.1988, and Rule 28A(2k) of the Rules, Section· B
13-B was subsequently amended by deleting the word "sales"
and consequently the new Section reads as under:-

"Power to Exempt Certain Class of Industries-The State
Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient so to do in the interest of industrial C
development of the State, exempt such class of
industries from payment of tax, for such period and
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."

10. Relying on the said amendment, the learned counsel D
appearing for the appellants submitted that by use of the word
"tax" instead of the words "sales tax", the legislature intended
to declare that the exemption was available on both sales as
well as purchase tax.

11. It is interesting to note that while the Act and the Rules E
were so amended, due to a legislative omission, the statutory
Forms ST-72 and ST-73 relating to grant of exemption
remained unchanged. Eligibility in Form ST-72 was granted to
the appellants for a period of 9 years and upto a total benefit
of 41.95 lakhs. F

12. Assessment for the years 1996-97 was completed by
the assessing authority. While doing so, no purchase tax was
levied but in the assessment order, it was held that since
payment of the rice received from the government was inclusive G
of purchase tax which was received by the assessees but was
not deposited, the same should be deposited by the assessees.

13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of
assessment, a first appeal was filed which was dismissed,
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 11 S.C.R.

A holding that the amount sought to be recovered by the
department has not been levied as purchase tax, but the said
amount is being recovered since the assessees had received
a price of rice inclusive of purchase tax.

14. On further appeal filed by the assessees, the Haryana
8
Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that since the
exemption certificate was only for sales tax and the same was
not amended, the liability to pay purchase tax would arise and
would continue. While holding that the appellants should restitute
the amount which they had received from the DFSC as
C purchase tax, the Tribunal also made an observation and sent
to the Government, a request to provide relief to them in the
exercise of its sovereign power. The said request was however,
not acceded to by the Government.

D 15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants
filed writ petitions in the High Court, whicti were dismissed
under the impugned judgment and order out of which the
present appeals arise.

E 16. The aforesaid facts would clearly indicate that the
Assessing Officer as also the First Appellate Authority did not
decide the liability of the appellant to pay the purchase tax, but
had held that since the payment of the price of rice received
from the government was inclusive of purchase tax, the same
F was required to be deposited with the government exchequer.
Therefore, since the amount had not been deposited by the
appellants, they could be recovered by the assessing
authorities. The Tribunal, however, held that since the exemption
certificate was only for sales tax and the same was not
amended, the liability to pay purchase tax would continue. The
G High Court, moreover, held that the appellants were liable to
pay purchase tax as there was no exemption granted to the
appellants from payment of purchase tax at any point of time.

17. We have already referred to the aforesaid note
H appended to the Notification dated 17 .10.1996. The aforesaid
JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF 1047
HARYANA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

note leaves no room for doubt that the assessees, while A
supplying rice to DFSC, collected purchase tax amongst other
, things by way of the procurement price.

18. Since they had collected the purchase tax, they were
required to deposit the same in the government exchequer
8
and there could be no justification for them to retain the
purchase tax and appropriate the same to their own use.
Retention of such purchase tax collected by the appellant
amounts to unjust enrichment which is not permissible in view
of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in C
the case of Mafatla/ Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of
India And Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536.

This Court in the said case held as under:-

"254 .............. The Excise Officer cannot tax more than D
what is permitted by the statute. If the levy is in excess of
the statute, then its retention by the State is unauthorised
by law. What is being retained is not in enforcement of the
charging section but something else. Such illegally
collected tax is not the property of the State and is not E
within the disposing power of the State .............. "

19. In Sahakari Khand Udyog Manda/ Ltd. v. CCE &
Customs, reported at (2005) 3 SCC 738, this Court (at page
748) elaborated upon the aspect of unjust enrichment thus:
F
"31. Stated simply, "unjust enrichment" means retention of
a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. "Unjust
enrichment" occurs when a person retains money or
benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience,
belong to someone else. G

32. The doctrine of "unjust enrichment", therefore, is that
no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the
expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine
of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of a benefit
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A is considered contrary to justice or against equity ....

. . . . . . .34. In the leading case of Fibrosa v. Fairbairn,
Lord Wright stated the principle thus: (All ER p.135 H)

"[A]ny civili;:;ed system of law is bound to provide
B remedies for cases of what has been called urijust
enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from
retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from,
another which it is against conscience that he should keep.
Such remedies in English law are generically different from
c remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to
fall within a third category of the common law which has
been called quasi-contract or restitution."

The above principle has been accepted in India. This
D Court in several cases has applied the doctrine of unjust
enrichment."

20. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors.,
reported at AIR 1961 SC 1438, this Court did not grant refund
to a dealer since he had already passed on the burden to the
E purchaser. It was observed that it was open to the legislature
to make a provision that an amount of illegal tax paid by the
persons could be claimed only by them and not by the dealer
and such restriction on the right of the dealer to obtain refund
could lawfully be imposed in the interests of general public.
F
21. The law laid down in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (supra)
was quoted with approval by this Court in Mafatlal Industries
Ltd. (supra), and the relevant portion of the said judgment has
been quoted hereinabove.
G 22. A reference may also be made to a decision of the
Constitution Bench in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. & Anr. v.
State of UP & Ors. reported at (2005) 2 SCC 515. In that
case, the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on
Luxuries Act, 1995 as also other State Acts was challenged
H
JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF 1049
HARYANA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

inter a/ia on the ground of legislative competence of the State A
Legislatures. The Court allowed the petition and held that the
State Legislatures were not competent to impose luxury tax on
tobacco and tobacco products and the Acts were declared
ultra vires and unconstitutional. In the intervening period,
however, tax was collected by the appellants from consumers B
and also paid to the State Governments. In certain cases,
interim relief was obtained by the appellants from this Court
against recovery of tax and as alleged by the State
Governments, the appellants continued to charge tax from
consumers/customers. The Court held: c
It was stated on behalf of the State Governments that after
obtaining interim orders from this Court against recovery
of luxury tax, the appellants continued to charge such tax
from consumers/customers. It is alleged that they did not
pay such tax to respective State Governments. It was, D
therefore, submitted that if the appellants are allowed to
retain the amounts collected by them towards luxury tax
from consumers, it would amount to 'unjust enrichment' by
them.
E
In our opinion, the submission is well founded and
deserves to be upheld. If the appellants have collected
any amount towards luxury tax from consumers!
customers after obtaining interim orders from this Court,
they will pay the said amounts to the respective State F
Governments."

23. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
not dispute the position that the payment made to them by
. DFSC also included the element of purchase tax. That being
the position and they having collected the purchase tax on G
paddy from the buyer, the same has to go to the government
exchequer. If however, such tax was found to be legally not
payable after its collection from the purchaser, it either has to
go back to the purchaser from whom it was collected or has
to be surrendered to the State exchequer and a dealer cannot H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A retain it as otherwise the same will amount to unjust enrichment
which is legally impermissible.

24. In the present case; since the aforesaid purchase tax
was collected by the appellants, the same is now required to
be paid back to the State exchequer in terms of the orders.
8
25. Since we have held that the appellants are now
required to pay back the purchase tax element which was
collected by them to the respondents, all the appeals could be
disposed of on the aforesaid ground alone. We have seen
C from the decision in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. (supra) that
even when the legality of a tax has been challenged
successfully, there can be no question of the said tax being
retained by the dealer/manufacturer, notwithstanding its
illegality. In the present instance, it is beyond doubt and clear
D from the appellants' own admission that the procurement price
included the element of purchase tax. That there may be an
issue relating to the levy of purchase tax does not in any way,
affect the conclusion that the appellants, who have been unjustly
enriched, must deposit the purchase tax element with the State.
E
26. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are not required to go into the other issue
as to whether or not there could have been levy of purchase
tax on the purchase of paddy in case of exempted units. We
F keep that question open to be decided in an appropriate case.

27. The present appeals are dismissed.

D.G Appeals dismissed.