JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29.3.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge held that since the Government has brought about a Notification under section 104 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act on 22.10.1992 which has been published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) on 3.12.1992 whereby they have revised the rate of octroi and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant Matrakrapa Chemicals, to this extent, has become infructuous. But the learned Single Judge, however, ordered that if after the decision given by this Court on 12.5.1992 still the octroi has been recovered on these items on the old rate then the Municipal Board, Balotra shall refund the amount which have been recovered by it after the decision of this Court on 12.5.1992. 2. Appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals has filed the appeal against the judgment praying that the respondent Municipal Board, Balotra may be directed to pay the amount of octroi levied @ 75% from the petitioner-appellant along with interest @18% per annum even prior to the date of the judgment. The Municipal Board, Balotra, in the appeal, has prayed that the judgment which relates to the refund of the octroi duty, may be set-aside. 3. Appellant Matrakrapa Chemicals is engaged in the trade of Caustic Soda and Bleaching powder within the municipal limits of Municipal Board, Balotra. Though by the Notification, vide Entry No. 144, the octroi duty on Caustic Soda is chargeable @.75% and on chemicals it was chargeable @.75% but the Municipal Board charged the octroi duty @1.5%. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition No. 5692 of 1992 on 27.1.1992 challenging the charging of excess amount of the octroi duty against the rate prescribed in Entry No. 144. That writ petition was opposed by the Municipal Board and the preliminary objection was raised that in view of the amendment made in the rates of the octroi chargeable on these items vide Notification dated 3.12.1992 issued under section 104(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the new revised rate of octroi duty on various items have been published and the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, therefore, became infructuous. The learned Single Judge, therefore, disposed of the writ petition by holding that after the new Notification dated 22.10.1992 issued under section 104, which has been published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 3.12.1992, whereby the State Government revised the rate of the octroi, the writ petition, to this extent, became infructuous. The learned Single Judge, however, ordered for the refund of the amount charged in-excess after 12.5.1992. It is against this judgment dated 29.3.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants have preferred these appeals. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for Matrakrapa Chemicals Ltd. is that the appellant cannot be taxed without the authority of law and if any amount of tax has been paid by the appellant-petitioner under the mistake of law or the mistake of facts which was not due against it then the `State' is under an obligation to refund the same and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in denying the relief of refund of the excess amount of the octroi from the appellant by the Municipal Board prior to 12.5.1992. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Municipal Board, on the other hand, is that the learned Single Judge was justified in not ordering for the refund of the octroi charged from the appellant prior to the date of the judgment, i.e. 12.5.1992 as the respondent has nowhere put-up the case in the writ petition that it has not passed-on the octroi duty recovered from it to the customers. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the Municipal Board that the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for the refund of the octroi duty with effect from 12.5.1992 to 31.12.1992. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The controversy involved in the present appeals are:- (i) whether the learned Single Judge was justified in ordering for the refund of the octroi to appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals with effect from 12.5.1992, i.e., the date of the judgment; and (ii) whether appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals is entitled for the refund of the excess amount of the octroi paid by it prior to 12.5.1992? 8. 8. By the judgment dated 12.5.1992, the learned Single Judge, in the similar case: Manish & Company v. Municipal Board, Balotra, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4518 of 1989 decided on 12.5.1992 wherein the same controversy was involved, while allowing the various writ petitions, held that "all kinds of chemicals, which fall under Entry No. 144 are liable to octroi duty @ .75%". The learned Single Judge further held in the case of Manish & Co. that the Entry No. 144, is, also, very clear and it includes all kinds of Soda (excepting the sodas used for washing the clothes) and are liable to the charge of the octroi @ .75%. This judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was up- held by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Municipal Board, therefore, could not have charged the octroi duty on these items in excess of the rates fixed in the Notification unless the Notification is revised or amended. The Notification in the present case was revised on 22.10.1992 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) on 3.12.1992. The recovery of the octroi duty on the enhanced rate during this period was without any authority of law, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for the refund of this amount. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, on this count, does not require interference. 9. The next question which requires consideration in the present case is : whether the appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals is entitled for the refund of the excess octroi duty charged from it by the Municipal Board prior to 12.5.1992? 10. The same controversy come-up for consideration before us in : Natural Chemical Corporation v. Municipal Board, Balotra, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 410 of 1992 and other connected appeals decided by us today itself, in which we have held that "if the dealer, after paying the octroi duty, has passed-on the burden to the consumers and collected the same then the order of refund would be an unjust enrichment for him but if the octroi duty has been paid by the dealer from his pocket then he is entitled for the refund and that will not amount to unjust enrichment because the amount which he has paid in excess has to be refunded to him." 11. The question which requires consideration in the present case is : whether appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals has been able to prove that the amount of excess octroi duty paid by it was borne by the appellant-petitioner itself or it was passed on to the customers. There is no averment in the writ petition that the amount of octroi duty paid in excess was paid by the petitioner- appellant itself and was not passed on to the consumers. Since there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant-petitioner, after paying the octroi duty, did not pass on the burden to the consumers and has not collected it from the customers, the order of refund of the excess octroi duty charged from the petitioner-appellant cannot be made because it would amount to unjust enrichment of appellant Matrakrapa Chemicals. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the question of refund of the octroi duty to the appellant Matrakrapa Chemicals does not arise in the present case because it has passed-on this burden to the consumers and, therefore, there is no equity in favour of appellant-petitioner Matrakrapa Chemicals to claim the refund of the octroi duty. 12. In the result, we do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******