JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

granted exemption but· in the assessment order, it was, A held that since they had collected purchase tax on paddy -· from DFSC as part of procurement price, they were required to deposit the tax so collected in the government treasury. _The order of assessment was upheld by the first appellate authority and the tribunal. The assessees' filed writ petitions before' ttie High c·ourt \vhich were dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessees filed the. instant appeals.·· .. - :-,:.';~.'/'. ·s - •, . . i - - - .. ~.--::.,:.-:·.\ Dismissing th7_ ;;ippe~l~~,t~e Court .. _ ' . ,.· . ;''!·-~·~--< - ~- ' .: ~- --..________ ' . . -. HELD: 1. Note (i) in the Schedule Ill to"the Notification • ' i ! . • - . • • t .- •• • • • ' C dated 17.10.1996 makes it clear that the assessees while supplying rice. to' DFSC collected purchase tax amongst other things by way of the procurement price; Since the assessees had collected the purchase fax whiie D supplying rice to DFSC, they were required to deposit the same in the government exchequer and there could be tax and no justification _for them to_ retain the purcha~e 1 appropriate the same to their own use. Retention _of such purchase tax collected by the appellants would amount E to unjust enrichment which· is not 'permissfble.· Even when the· legality of a tax is challenged successfully; · t_here_can be no ques_tion of the said tax being retained by the dealer/manufacturer; notwithstanding its illegality. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the · F court is not. required to go into the other issue as to whether or not there ·c'ould have been levy of purchase tax on .tti_e purchase· of. paddy in case of exempted· units. The question_ is kept open to be decided in an appropriate cas'e)[Paras 17, 18, 25, 26][1046-H; 1047~A~8;"1'65o~c-E] G r . . ~ ....