JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. - Since common questions arise for consideration in these appeals, we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. These are appeals arising actually against an interlocutory order dated November 25, 1994 in C.M.P. No. 22230 of 1994 in O.P. No. 12615 of 1994 and C.M.P. No. 28497 of 1994 in O.P. No. 16197 of 1994-C. The prayer in the interim application was to stay with regard to deduction of the amount, liable in view of provisions of sub-section (7B) of section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as amended by Act (19 of 1994). 3. The learned single Judge of this Court has declined to grant the interim direction, in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 330 wherein the Supreme Court expressed wonder as to why in the matters of indirect taxation where the burden has already been passed on to the consumer, any interim relief should at all be given to the manufacturer, dealer and the like. The learned Judge has also referred to the observations therein of the Supreme Court that the court must be circumspect in granting interim orders preventing collection of public revenue for no better reason that the parties have come to the court alleging inconvenience or harm and that a prima facie case has been shown. 4. However, it must be stated that the learned Judge has nowhere recorded even a semblance of an observation that a prima facie case has been made out. The observations of the Supreme Court acted upon by the learned Judge actually go a step further to make observations inspite of a prima facie case. 5. Learned counsel sought to urge that a prima facie case to the effect that the new amendment introduced by Act 19 of 1994, specifically with reference to sub-section (7B) of section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, would be violative of articles 265, 366(29A) and article 14 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, it is not possible to consider the aspect at this appellate stage with reference to the interlocutory nature of the proceedings. 6. Be that as it may, it is not possible to consider the aspect at this appellate stage with reference to the interlocutory nature of the proceedings. 6. We do not find any error in the approach that places reliance on the well-known dictum based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment under the law of contract. There is no dispute that the burden has already been passed over to the consumer, in a process of indirect taxation. The learned counsel submitted that at least the future will be saved. It is not possible to accept the submission. For the above reasons, appeals stand dismissed at the stage of admission. Writ appeals dismissed.