JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. This batch of Special Appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.29 of 2019 and batch dated 05.07.2019. The appellant, in all these cases, are the Mandi Samitis either at Jaspur in District Udham Singh Nagar or in Ramnagar of District Nainital. 2. The respondent-writ petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, in so far as it related to the petitioners; and a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to return the amount, which the petitioners had deposited with the third respondent as mandi fees and development cess under protest, along with interest at 12% per annum. 3. These cases have a chequered history. Pursuant to the show cause notices issued by Mandi Samitis informing the respondent-writ petitioners that their licenses would not be renewed for non-payment of the mandi fees, the respondent-writ petitioners paid the said amount under protest. The validity of the said levy was subjected to challenge before this Court, and the challenge was upheld, and the provision was struck down as ultra vires, by the learned Single Judge which order was affirmed by the Division Bench. The State legislature, thereafter, amended Section 27 (c)(iii) of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2011 Act”). The validity of the amended provision was also subjected to challenge before this Court, and both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench upheld the validity of the provisions, and repelled the challenge thereto by the petitioners therein. On the matter being carried in appeal, the Supreme Court, in “M/s Gujrat Ambuja Exports Ltd. & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”: 2016 (3) SCC 601 , struck down the amendment made to Section 27 (c)(iii) of the 2011 Act, and declared the levy of mandi fees to be unconstitutional. 4. The petitioners herein, thereafter, made a claim, for refund of the amount paid by them, on the ground that the said amount, though illegal, had been paid by them earlier under protest to the Mandi Samitis. On the said amount not being refunded to them, they again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing WPMS No.2440 of 2016 and batch. On the said amount not being refunded to them, they again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing WPMS No.2440 of 2016 and batch. In his order in WPMS No.2440 and batch dated 16.05.2017, a learned Single of this Court relied on the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others vs. Union of India & others : (1997) 5 SCC 536 wherein the Supreme Court held that there was a presumption that the taxpayer had passed on the liability to the consumer; a person, who claims that there is no unjust enrichment, must rebut this presumption of unjust enrichment; and, therefore, the burden is cast not upon the revenue but upon the person claiming refund of the mandi fees which he had already deposited with the Mandi Samitis. 5. Following the law declared by the Supreme Court, in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., the learned Single Judge placed the onus on the dealers to prove that they had not passed on the tax burden to their vendees. He directed the petitioners to make a representation, and discharge their onus to show that they had not passed on the burden to the consumer; and request that the mandi fees and development cess, which they had deposited with the Mandi Samitis, be refunded to them after establishing that it was not a case of unjust enrichment. The State Government was directed to pass an order, in accordance with law, with regard to refund of the said amount. 6. The learned Single Judge also directed that a Committee, consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary Law-cum-L.R. and the Secretary Finance, be constituted to examined the matter. The three member committee, however, appears to have, on its own accord, co-opted the Secretary (Agriculture), Government of the Uttarakhand and the Managing Director, Mandi Board (appellant herein) as members and, by order dated 27.04.2018 (the order impugned in this writ petition), they rejected the petitioners’ claim for refund on the ground that they had failed to discharge the burden of proving that they had not passed on the mandi fees, and the development cess, levied on them to their vendees; and, in some of the 9-R Forms, the dealers had not mentioned the exact amount, and had merely furnished the lump sum amount of trade expenses- 8 units (Aarat, Tulai, Dalali, Palledari, Bharai, Silai, Mandi fees, Development Cess) and other expenses together. 7. 7. The petitioners had, in the meanwhile, sought information under the Right to Information Act and, by letter dated 29.06.2017, they were informed that, as per the documents available in the office and the copy of the Form 9-R, the seller had not recovered any mandi fees and development cess from their consumers. 8. Questioning the order passed by the Government on 27.04.2018, the petitioners again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge took note of one Form 9-R as illustrative of all the 9-R Forms filed by the petitioners. The learned Single Judge extracted the contents of the said Form 9-R which showed the rate per quintal of Rice grade-1 as Rs.1275/-; the total value as Rs.36,750/- with 4% as VAT; in column No.6 the total, of eight different items, was shown as Rs.1470/-; and the total value of the 9-R Form was shown as Rs.38,220/-. 9. We find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, that 4% VAT on the value of Rs.36,750/- would only come to Rs.1470/-; and, since this the amount mentioned in Column No.6, it does appear from this Form 9-R that what was collected by the petitioner-dealer was only 4% VAT, and not mandi fees and development cess. 10. On the basis of this Form 9-R, and the information furnished under the Right to Information Act on 29.06.2017, the learned Single Judge observed that it was not possible for a rice miller to produce records to show that he had not recovered any mandi fees and development cess from its consumers (as the same was not in existence); if the Mandi Samatis had asked the rice miller to produce the record which showed that the rice miller had recovered the mandi fees and development cess from the consumers, the rice millers could produce such a statement of account because it (record) was in existence; and a perusal of the record clearly shows that the petitioners had deposited the mandi fees and development cess with the Mandi Samiti by way of various cheques. Holding that the petitioners had abundantly proved that they had not passed on their liability to the consumers, the learned Single Judge directed that the mandi fees and development cess should be refunded to them. Holding that the petitioners had abundantly proved that they had not passed on their liability to the consumers, the learned Single Judge directed that the mandi fees and development cess should be refunded to them. The impugned orders were quashed, and the respondent-authorities were directed to refund the mandi fees and the development cess to the petitioners concerned within a period of two weeks from the the date of production of a copy of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals. 11. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has placed before us copies of a few Form 9-Rs in support of his submission that certain dealers had separately charged mandi fees @ 2% which, in effect, meant that 2% mandi fees had been passed on by them to their consumers; while a few dealers had truthfully disclosed collection of 2% mandi fees and development cess, other dealers had camouflaged this amount, and had surreptitiously included it in the sale price itself; they had, instead of giving a break up of each item (which included mandi fees) in column no. 6 of Form 9-R, had conveniently, and to their advantage, only disclosed the total amount; and since the onus was on them to establish that they had not passed on the burden of this levy to their purchasers, the State Government was justified in passing the order dated 27.04.2018, and in holding that the petitioners had not discharged the onus of establishing that they had not passed on the burden of the levy to their purchasers. 12. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the information furnished by the Officer concerned, under the Right to Information Act, by letter dated 29.06.2017 is on an erroneous understanding of the information sought for; a show cause notice has already been issued to the said officer; disciplinary action would be taken against him for his having furnished such wrong information; the error on the part of one Officer would not justify the Public Exchequer being needlessly burdened; and larger public interest will not be served in directing refund of the amount, representing the mandi fees and development cess, to the respondent-writ petitioners, since they had passed on the burden to their purchasers. 13. On the other hand Mr. 13. On the other hand Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, would submit that the entire records, consisting of credit notes and Form 9-Rs were placed before the Committee; the petitioners had, instead of burdening this Court with copies of all Forms 9-Rs, enclosed a copy of one Form 9-R as representative of all the Form 9-Rs; having admitted, in their letter dated 29.06.2017, that the seller had not recovered any mandi fees and development cess from their consumers, it was not open to the respondents to hold to the contrary; this letter dated 29.06.2017 was not even considered by the committee while examining the petitioners’ claim for refund of the amount on the ground that the burden had not been passed on their consumers; the defense, raised in the counter affidavit, was that the petitioners were not parties before the Supreme Court, and were therefore not entitled to seek refund of the amount and the Supreme Court had also not directed refund of the said amount; no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back to the authorities concerned, since a similar exercise of cursory examination would be undertaken by them only to deprive the respondent-writ petitioners of refund of the amount which they are entitled to. 14. Article 265 of the Constitution of India stipulates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Since the Supreme Court, in “M/s. Ambuja Exports Ltd. & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”: 2016 (3) SCC 601 , had held that Section 27(3), whereby mandi fees and development cess were levied, was unconstitutional, levy of the said amount by the Mandi Samitis is not authorized by law and is illegal. Once the levy is declared illegal by the Supreme Court, collection of fees and cess, under the said illegal levy, would also be illegal; and, consequently, all those, from whom mandi fees and development cess was illegally collected, would be entitled to claim refund of the said amount; and such a benefit of refund cannot be confined only to those who were parties before the Supreme Court in “M/s. Ambuja Exports Ltd. & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”. The mere fact that the Supreme Court has not, specifically, directed refund of the amount would not disable the respondent-writ petitioner from claiming refund, for the State cannot be permitted to retain the amount, collected by them under an unauthorized and illegal levy; and the said amount would be required to be refunded to those from whom such amounts were levied and collected. 15. We are not impressed with the contention, urged on behalf of the appellants, that the respondent-writ petitioners were disentitled from claiming refund because they were not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The fact, however, remains that, in terms of the law declare by the Supreme Court, in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others : (1997) 5 SCC 536 , a dealer is not entitled for refund of the amount paid under an illegal levy, if he had passed on the burden of such levy to his consumers. Refund, in such circumstances, can only be claimed by the consumers. In choosing between the State retaining the proceeds of such an illegal levy, and the said amount being refunded to a dealer who had passed on the burden to their consumers, the Supreme Court, in “Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others”, held that it was in public interest that the said amount was retained by the Government, instead of unjustly enriching the dealer who would be, doubly, benefited by the refund for he had already passed on the burden of the levy to his consumers. 16. Applying this doctrine of ‘unjust enrichment’, the Supreme Court, in “Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others”, held that there was always a presumption that the dealer had passed on the liability to the consumers; and, therefore, a person who claims refund must rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment. The onus to prove, that the burden of the levy was not passed on to his consumer, lies on the dealer and the State is under no obligation to establish that the dealer had passed on the burden to his consumer. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, in error in holding that the dealer cannot be asked to prove the negative; and it is for the State, therefore, to establish that the dealer had, in fact, passed on the said burden to his consumer. 17. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, in error in holding that the dealer cannot be asked to prove the negative; and it is for the State, therefore, to establish that the dealer had, in fact, passed on the said burden to his consumer. 17. While the letter dated 29.06.2017, issued under the Right to Information Act, was also relied upon by the learned Single Judge to hold that the dealers had not recovered mandi fees and development cess from their consumers, we cannot ignore the submission made, across the Bar, by Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the said letter was issued on a misunderstanding of the information sought; disciplinary action has now been initiated against the errant officials for furnishing wrong information; and a show cause notice has already been issued to him. We are satisfied that the Public Exchequer cannot be, needlessly, burdened by an erroneous information furnished under the Right to Information Act; and, since disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against the official concerned, we see no reason to rely on this letter dated 29.06.2017 to grant the respondent-writ petitioners the relief of refund of the amounts collected from them earlier towards mandi fees and development cess. 18. While the object of constituting a Committee, consisting of the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary Law-cum-L.R., and Secretary Finance, is not free from doubt since it would be well-nigh impossible for them to examine each and every Form 9-R and credit note, as also the books of accounts of each dealer, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in WPMS No. 2440 of 2016 dated 16.05.2017, has attained finality. As noted hereinabove, the examination conducted by the Committee, constituted by the Learned Single Judge, is perfunctory. Except to state that the dealers had not discharged the onus to establish that they had not passed on the burden to their consumers; and they had mentioned the total amount, in column No.6 of Form 9-R, instead of furnishing the break-up of each item, the Committee’s report, despite recording that they had examined the documents, rejects the petitioners’ claim for refund merely on the ground that they had not discharged the onus without discussing why the documents produced by them did not merit acceptance. 19. 19. Since the respondent-writ petitioners had produced credit notes and Form 9-Rs, the authorities concerned were obligated to examine each of these documents and record reasons why each of these documents should either be accepted or rejected. We may not be understood to have held that the authorities concerned should confine their examination only to the Form 9-Rs or the credit notes, for it is always open to them to summon the books of accounts of the concerned dealer to verify whether such books of accounts disclose that the dealer had passed on the burden of the levy to their consumers. 20. The impugned order does not disclose reasons why the authorities concerned were satisfied that the petitioners had failed to discharge the onus. On the ground that the impugned order is bereft of reasons, and suffers from non-application of mind, the said order necessitates being set aside. That, however, does not justify this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding that the petitioners had not passed on the burden to their consumers as this Court would not, in the exercise of their extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, undertake an examination of disputed questions of fact, or take upon itself the task of examining each Form 9-R and credit note produced by the petitioners or to summon their books of accounts to ascertain whether or not the petitioner-dealers had passed on the burden of the levy to their consumers. 21. Merely on the basis of one form 9-R, and the letter furnished under the Right to Information Act, no mandamus could have been issued to the authorities to refund the amount. On the Court being satisfied that the orders, impugned in the writ petitions, suffered from non-application of mind, and were bereft of reasons, all that this Court could have done is to direct the authorities concerned to re-examine the matter and pass a detailed order dealing with each sale transaction and the evidence produced in support thereof, and assign reasons why each of these documents either merit or do not merit acceptance. 22. While, ordinarily, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Committee, constituted by the learned Single Judge earlier, both Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. 22. While, ordinarily, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Committee, constituted by the learned Single Judge earlier, both Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit, (with which submission we are also in agreement), that the matter can be better examined by the concerned Mandi Samitis itself, since it would require elaborate examination of all the documents, and a detailed order to be passed assigning reasons why the documents produced, as evidence, by the petitioner either merits or does not merit acceptance. 23. The orders under appeal are set aside. Both the Jaspur and Ramnagar Mandi Samitis are directed to undertake the exercise of determining whether or not the respondent-writ petitioners had discharged the onus of showing that they had not passed on the burden of the levy to their consumers, after examining each and every Form 9-R and credit note already produced by the petitioners, and after calling for such other information as it may consider necessary; give each dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and to produce documentary evidence in support of their claim for refund; and pass detailed orders assigning reasons why the documents produced by the petitioners either merits acceptance or necessitates rejection. 24. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed and communicated to the respondent-writ petitioners, shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.