JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED J. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner by way of sales tax under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the refund is due on merits, it is not being granted to the petitioner on the ground of unjust enrichment. Upon the making of an application for refund, the same has been disposed of by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that as the dealer had collected the tax and deposited the same with the Revenue, it cannot be refunded to the actual tax-payer implying thereby that in case the refund is granted to the petitioner - dealer, it would amount to his unjust enrichment. This issue of refund of tax due under the Sales Tax Act is no longer res integra in so far as the aspect of unjust enrichment is concerned. Mr. Taneja, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, pointed to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co. [1994] 95 STC 5. In particular he referred to the following portion of the decision : "At the same time, we find it not possible to agree with the Karnataka High Court insofar as it directed refund of the amount, which may be found to have been paid in excess of the legal liability, to the respondents. Any such direction would amount to unjust enrichment of the respondents who are merely dealers and have passed on the burden to the purchasers/consumers. The dealers themselves have not suffered any loss. They merely passed on the liability. In such cases, this court has been refusing to refund the tax. See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal [1987] 64 STC 6 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 901 and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab [1986] 62 STC 130; AIR 1985 SC 218 . An identical question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court comprising J. S. Verma and A. S. Anand, JJ., in Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation, Jullundhar [1993] 1 SCC 333 with respect to entry tax itself. After holding that the levy of duty was not justified in law, the Bench dealt with the question of refund in paragraph 23 in the following words: '23. After holding that the levy of duty was not justified in law, the Bench dealt with the question of refund in paragraph 23 in the following words: '23. Before parting with the appeal, we would however, like to take note of the submission made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation with regard to the question of refund of the octroi duty, already deposited by the appellant. The question of refund, in our opinion, does not arise. The IOC has collected the octroi duty from its dealers and agents, who have in turn passed on the burden to the consumer. Thus, having collected the octroi duty, there is no equity in favour of the IOC to claim a refund of the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also conceded that the question of refund, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise and we, therefore, hold that the appellant shall not be entitled to any refund of the octroi duty already deposited by the appellant with the Municipal Corporation'. We are in respectful agreement with the above principle. In this case also, it is not brought to our notice that the respondents have alleged and/or established that they have not passed on the duty to the purchasers/consumers. The normal presumption is that they have done so. If they say otherwise, it is for them to allege and establish the same. In the absence of any such allegation and proof, the direction of refund is not called for." Upon a reading of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that where taxes have been collected by the dealers from the actual purchasers/consumers and thereby resulted in the taxes being passed on to such purchasers/consumers, there is no question of refund to the dealer as that would amount to the dealer's unjust enrichment which is not permissible. In respect of Central excise duty with regard to the issue of unjust enrichment, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467 is also apposite. In this writ petition, it has not been controverted by the petitioner that the taxes were in fact collected from the customers, implying thereby that the tax had been passed on to the customers. Therefore, directing refund would amount to unjustly enriching the petitioner. In this writ petition, it has not been controverted by the petitioner that the taxes were in fact collected from the customers, implying thereby that the tax had been passed on to the customers. Therefore, directing refund would amount to unjustly enriching the petitioner. This is not permissible in view of the discussion above. Accordingly we dismiss this writ petition. No order as to costs.