JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated August 5, 1997 of learned Single Judge whereby the Municipal Corporation Kota, appellant herein, was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,31,498.12 with interest to respondent M/s. J.K. Synthetics (for short 'JKS'). 2. Contextual facts depict that the writ petition was filed by JKS before the learned Single Judge, assailing the validity of Rule 14 (8) of Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 (for short 'Octroi Rules'). The prayer made in the writ petition was as under : (i) to declare Rule 14(8) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 to be unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 and to struck (sic) down the same and to quash the decisions contained in the letters dated 19.9.1982 and 12.8.1981 and the respondents nos. 1, 2 and 4 be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12.31,498.12 with interest at the Bank rate, (ii) to declare that petitioner no. 1 was entitled to exemption for a period mentioned in the certificates Annexure-2 and 3 and contrary decision of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was void, ineffective and inoperative. 3. Learned Single Judge however did not examine the validity of Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules but observed thus : (Para 19) ....Strictly speaking the provisions of Rule 14(8) are not applicable in the present case, because the petitioner was not holding the certificate and, therefore, the amount deposited was for the reason because it was not granted and it was not on account of failure of the petitioner to produce such certificate." 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us. 5. Before proceeding further we deem it appropriate to refer Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules, which reads as under : "In case where the State Government have, under sub-section (5) of Section 107 of the Act, exempted any class of goods from paymegt of octroi subject to the production of certificate from concerned authorities and the person bringing such goods does not produce the requisite certificate at the time of entry of the goods within Municipal limits, he shall have to forthwith deposit such amount as is equivalent to the amount of octroi leviable on such goods. Provided that the amount so deposited shall be refunded to the payee if he makes an application within a period of 2 months from the date of such deposit, alongwith the aforesaid certificate." 6. Having examined the scheme of Octroi Rules, we notice that they were enacted by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 297 read with Section 104 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `1959 Act'). The State Government had authority to exempt any class of goods from payment of Octroi under section 107 of 1959 Act and the person bringing such exempted goods had to produce the exemption certificate at the time of entry of goods within Municipal limits, otherwise the person had to forthwith deposit the octroi leviable on such goods and amount so deposited could be refunded to the payee on filing application within a period of two months from the date of such deposit alongwith exemption certificate. 7. Since JKS did not produce exemption certificate at the time of entry of the goods within municipal limits, it was under an obligation to deposit the octroi in view of Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules. The amount of octroi so deposited could be refunded on filing application within a period of two months from the date of such deposit alongwith exemption certificate. On scanning the facts stated in the writ petition, it appears to us that JKS did not make any application in terms of the proviso to Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules before the Municipal Corporation within two months for the refund of the octroi. 8. In the impugned order learned Single Judge indicated that since the exemption certificate was issued retrospectively to JKS it had waived the condition to make application for refund. Learned Single Judge further observed that since Octroi was collected contrary to law it had to be refunded. We do not agree with these observations. In our opinion mandate of Rule 14(8) could not be interpreted in a casual manner. The Octroi was collected by Municipal Corporation under the powers vested in it by Rule 14(8) and it could only be refunded after following the procedure Lald down in the proviso appended to Rule 14(8). Octroi was collected legally in view of the provisions' contained in Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules and it could not be held that octroi was collected contrary to law. Octroi was collected legally in view of the provisions' contained in Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules and it could not be held that octroi was collected contrary to law. The first relief sought by the respondent JKS was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it was not necessary to examine the vires of Rule 14(8) of Octroi Rules since it was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. That takes us to the special appeal No. 1072/1998 preferred by State of Rajasthan. Having closely analysed the facts of the instant matter we find that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the doctrine of unjust enrichment before passing order of refund. It was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to examine whether JKS collected the amount of octroi from its purchaser. The amount of octroi could not be refunded to JKS if it had collected it from the purchaser. In Mafat Lal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court propounded that doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. He cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, we find merits in these appeals and they stand allowed. The impugned order of learned Single Judge dated August 5, 1997 stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******