TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the Court shall not bind, for that would tantamount to reversing the decision in the exercise of judicial power, which the Legislature does not possess or exercise. A Court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances - the validity of a validating law depends upon whether the Legislature possesses the competence that it claims over the subject matter and whether, in making the validation, it removes the defect that the Courts had found in the existing law and makes adequate provisions in the validating law for a valid imposition of the tax. The super-session of judicial verdicts through legislation sometimes involves the violation of the separation of powers doctrine under the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this issue in Government of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Ors, vs James Varghese and Ors. [ 2022 (6) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT ], and State of Tamil Nadu vs State of Kerala [ 2014 (5) TMI 1110 - SUPREME COURT ] - the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, entered into force though some exercise was undertaken to align its provisions with the constitutional amendments. Manifest arbitrariness - HELD THAT:- The State of Goa does not dispute liability to refund the excess tax amount in the present cases. The State does not even dispute the liability to pay interest at 8% per annum. However, the State contends that interest would not become payable from the 91st day of the refund order but the 91st day of the sanction order. As noted earlier, no time limit for making the sanction order is fixed. No reasons are required to be provided for any delay in making the sanction order. Thus, the State contends that it can, based upon its Officers' tardiness or procrastination, retain the excess tax amount for an indefinite period or at least an unreasonably lengthy period without obligation for payment of any interest - prima facie, such a provision would be arbitrary and unreasonable given the reasoning in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of the necessity to pay interest by way of compensation where tax refunds are unduly delayed. Deprivation of vested constitutional rights with retrospective effect - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt's decisions in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2018 and connected matters despite Special Leave Petitions against the same being dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the specious plea that such decisions stand nullified or are rendered ineffective after the passage of the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 (impugned Amendment Act). In the alternative, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned Amendment Act on several grounds, including legislative override, legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, etc. 2. Since substantially similar issues of law and fact arise in these matters, they are disposed of by a common judgment and order. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 139, 140, 141, 148, 228 and 350 of 2022 (United Spirits Limited vs State of Goa) deal with alcohol for human consumption. Therefore, some of the challenges raised in this petition may not be available to these petitioners. However, most of the other challenges are common to all the petitioners. Therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No. 23 of 2021 (Mr Rohan Lobo vs State of Goa) is taken as the lead petition sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time limit for compliance had already expired, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted no interim relief. Thus, even after the SLP was dismissed, the mandamus was not honoured. 3.8. Accordingly, the Petitioner was constrained to institute Contempt Petition under Stamp Number No. 1304/2020. After seeking several adjournments, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes filed an affidavit in reply on 05.11.2021. 3.9. In this affidavit, a reference was made to the impugned Amendment Act, and based thereon, it was submitted that this Court's decision dated 19.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 720/2019 and the mandamus issued therein has been rendered ineffective due to the removal of the bases on which the said order was rendered . 3.10. Accordingly, the Petitioner was constrained to institute the present petition. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS : 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of their respective petitions:- 4.1 The impugned Amendment is an instance of impermissible legislative override and infringes the doctrine of separation of powers. The fundamental bases of the judicial decisions sought to be null ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted and introduced Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effective from 01.07.2017, to align the tax on goods and services law with the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. Therefore, in terms of Section 174 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, GVAT Act, 2005 was repealed except in respect of goods included in Entry 54 of the State List of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, viz. petroleum products and alcohol for human consumption. 4.5 The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the State legislature could have never amended the repealed GVAT Act, 2005 without even bothering to revive the same, assuming such revival was possible after 16.09.2017. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon several decisions supporting the contention that a repealed Act cannot be amended without revival. These include Reliance Industries Ltd. vs State of Gujarat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj. 694, Sri Sri Engineering Works and Ors. vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT) Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1367, Baiju A.A. vs State Tax Officer, State Goods Services Tax Department and Anr. 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 5362, State Tax Officer vs Baiju A.A. (WA No.48/2020), and Jatindra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial decisions were entirely based on the interpretation of Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act, 2005. Now that these Sections and even some linked Sections were substantially amended with retrospective effect, the bases of the judicial decisions stood altered, thereby rendering the judicial decisions ineffective and unimplementable. 5.2 The learned Advocate General submitted that this is a time-tested and permissible legislative exercise. He relied on Goa Foundation and Anr. vs. State of Goa (2016) 6 SCC 602, The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (1975) 2 SCC 274, Easland Combines, Coimbatore vs. Collector of Central Excise (2003) 3 SCC 410, Bakhtawar Trust and Ors. vs. M.D. Narayan and Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 298, Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Yash Pal Garg (dead) by Lrs and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 92, I.N. Saksena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 4 SCC 750 and M/s. Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (1973) 3 SCC 585. 5.3 The learned Advocate General submitted that GVAT Act, 2005, was not entirely repealed by Section 174 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 483. CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS : IMPERMISSIBLE JUDICIAL OVERRIDE? 6. The first question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned Amendment Act is an instance of impermissible judicial override to reverse or set at nought the judicial decisions of this Court even after SLPs against the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners contend that the Legislature has not removed the fundamental bases of the judicial decisions. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General argued that the fundamental bases are removed with retrospective effect; therefore, this is not an instance of legislative override. 7. Several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have fairly settled the legal position of validating statutes. However, there are always issues of application of such principles depending upon facts and circumstances peculiar to the cases that fall for consideration. 8. Since both sides relied strongly on Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), reference to this decision at the very outset would be appropriate. This is a leading case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power is a significant principle under the Constitution of India. Accordingly, breaching the separation of judicial power may negate equality under Article 14. Separation of powers between three organs the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, is also nothing but the consequence of principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, legislation can be invalidated based on a breach of the separation of powers since such a breach negates equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further elaborated that the doctrine of separation of powers applies to final judgments of the Courts. Therefore, the Legislature cannot declare any decision of a Court of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however, pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by the Court of law or on coming to know of it aliunde. In other words, a Court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. Further, suppose the Legislature has power over the subject matter and competence to make a validating law, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon to dispose of the other petitions in the batch. Then we propose to consider whether the impugned Amendment Act has removed the defects pointed out by the Court or otherwise altered the fundamental bases of this Court's decisions. In short, the scope of inquiry is whether the impugned Amendment Act is genuinely a validating Act or an instance of impermissible judicial override. 19. In USL, the main issue involved was the date from which simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum would become payable on the amount refundable under the provisions of the GVAT Act. The Court held that such interest would become payable on the 91st day from the expiry of the refund order, where such refund is not paid within 90 days of such determination. 20. To support the above conclusion/decision, the Division Bench of this Court did refer to and rely upon the provisions of Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act. However, such reliance was not the sole or exclusive basis to support the above conclusion or decision. In addition, the Court referred to the phraseology of Rule 30, the interplay between the Act and Rules, and the need for a harmonious construction. The Court referred to and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for a refund under Section 10(3) of the GVAT Act. In that case, the assessing authorities could not avoid liability or payment of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the specious plea that such liability commences only from the date of expiry of 90 days from the date of sanction or under Rule 30 of the said Rules. 24. In paragraphs 53 and 54, the Court relied upon Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. Union of India and others (2011) 10 SCC 292., and Union of India and Ors. vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories (2016) 6 SCC 621., to hold that interest under Section 11-B and 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of an application for refund or on the expiry of three months from the date on which the refund order is made. Accordingly, the Court ruled that interest becomes payable after the expiry of three months from the date of application for refund and payment of such interest cannot be resisted based on any procrastination by the Authorities. 25. Thus, it is clear that this Court's decisions, whether in Writ Petition No. 424/2018 or the connected matters, were not solely or exclusively bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned Amendment Act has not even touched this finding about relating back which attained finality after the dismissal of SLPs by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 30. Fifthly and again, to ensure that no interest is denied to an Assessee due to procrastination by the authorities to issue a sanction order, this Court held that the 90-day time limit provided in Section 33(2) of the GVAT Act was, in fact, the time limit within which the assessing authorities must obtain sanction in terms of Rule 30 of the said Rules ; Even this finding remains relatively untouched except that now it could be contended that the time limit under Section 10 or 33 is about 180 days. Accordingly, the principle remains unaffected by the impugned Amendment Act. 31. Sixthly , this Court also held that if, for any reason, a sanction order under Rule 30 of the said Rules was not obtained within these 90 days, the Assessing Authorities could not avoid liability for payment of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the specious plea that such a liability commences only from the date of expiry of 90 days from the date of the sanction or under Rule 30 of the said Rules. Again, the principle rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) that the impugned Amendment was in light of recent judgment of the honourable High Court based on interpretation of Section 33 of Goa Value added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 30 of the Goa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which is different from the interpretation/intentions of the Government of the said provisions of the Act, regarding payment of interest on refund of Tax ; (b) That the Advocate General, in his opinion, tendered to the Government had suggested certain amendments to the GVAT Act in order to do away with the effect of such an interpretation and to save revenue of the State ; (c) That the Bill seeks to retrospectively bring into effect the amendments of the proposed bill notwithstanding contained in any order, judgment, decree, directions of any authority, tribunal or court or any other instrument having the force of law and shall apply to all cases from the date of enactment of the Goa Value Added Tax (Act 9 of 2005) ; (d) The Bill seeks to fix the time limit of giving a refund from three months from the date of the order of the sanctioning authority in case of an application for a refund under sub-section (3) of section 10 ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2, 3 and 4, which shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April, 2005, 2. Amendment of section 10. - In section 10 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Goa Act 9 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act ), in sub-section (3), for the expression shall be refunded in the prescribed manner within 3 months from the date of filing of application claiming the refund , the expression shall upon an application made by such exporter be refunded in such manner within a period of ninety days from the date of the sanction order of such authority, as prescribed shall be substituted. 3. Amendment of section 29. - In section 29 of the principal Act, after sub-section (9), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely: (10) Where any order passed under this section, results in refund of any amount of tax, interest or penalty and no appeal, review or revision is filed against such order within the time limit specified in this Act, the Appropriate Assessing Authority shall after expiry of time limit for filing of appeal, review or revision shall submit the complete proposal for sanction of refund, within a period of 90 days from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of the principal Act before its Amendment under this Act. Secretariat, Porvorim Goa Dated :17-08-2020 CHOKHA RAM GARG Secretary to the Government of Goa Law Department (Legal Affairs). 36. The primary amendment applies to Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act, 2005. Because the judicial decisions (that are now sought to be rendered ineffective) had provided that interest on excess and found refundable tax was to be paid from the 91st day of the refund order under Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act, 2005, the impugned Amendment Act now provides that such interest would become payable from the 91st day of sanction order . The other bases, which were fundamental, have not been touched by the impugned Amendment Act. 37. Apart from the wordings of unamended Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act, 2005, the foundation of the judicial decisions of this Court, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was that the Revenue could reap no undue advantage from its own delays or due to the procrastination of its officials. The Court felt such a situation would be arbitrary, and even the statutory scheme did not support such a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be the time limit within which the appropriate Assessing Authority must obtain sanction in terms of Rule 30 of the said Rules. Finally, such a view could be taken by adverting to the Constitutional provisions in Articles 14, 265 and 300-A. 40. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention that the impugned amendments to Sections 10 and 33 of the GVAT Act were sufficient to knock off the base or the fundamental premise of this Court's decisions as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In particular, the Amendment has not even touched the aspect of scope and object of Rule 30 of the said Rules. The Amendment has not even touched the discrepancy arising from the refund to be made forthwith from the date of the sanction order as provided in Rule 30 of the said Rules. The impugned Amendment has not even dealt with the findings, based upon the interpretation of the scheme of the GVAT Act and the said Rules about the sanction order relating back to the date of refund order made by the Assessing Authority at least to the extent of the amount referred to in the sanction order. The impugned Amendment has not even dealt with this Court's finding that 90 days time limit provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinciple that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law as enshrined in Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such findings have not been and could not have been nullified by the impugned Amendment Act. 44. Moreover, because they relate to the provisions in Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution, such findings could not have been nullified or watered down by simply amending the requirements of the GVAT Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding the attempt, we think the impugned Amendment Act has not displaced the base or all the bases of this Court's decisions. Some dent to one of the bases is not the same as a complete obliteration of all the grounds or premises on which the two decisions were founded. Therefore, notwithstanding the form of the impugned Amendment, the same cannot be regarded as a proper validating Act sufficient to render the two decisions ineffective, as claimed by the State Government in its affidavit. Based upon the impugned amendments, therefore, the State Government cannot avoid the obligation of complying with the directions in the judgment and decision. 45. The learned Advocate General argued that a Court's judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, based upon the impugned amendments, the Respondents cannot refuse to comply with the directions in the judicial decisions that have attained finality. 48. In Laghu Udyog Bharati And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 418, The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Mangalam Cement Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC) and Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Anr. vs Union Of India Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 214, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the entire basis of a judgment is not removed in the amended statute, then the amended statute would still be struck down on the deficiencies pointed out by the Court. Further, unless the entire deficiencies are removed, a binding decision of the Court cannot be held to be nullified or rendered ineffective. The State cannot refuse to follow such binding decisions based upon part removal of deficiencies or by partly altering the basis of the judicial decisions. 49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stalled a similar attempt at nullifying a judicial decision in the State of Karnataka Ors. Vs Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 363. In this case, the main issue was whether the amendments made to the Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. Resultantly, it amends the law by removing the mistakes committed in the earlier legislation, which removes the basis and foundation of the judgment. If this is done, the same does not amount to statutory overruling. However, the Legislature cannot set at nought the judgments which have been pronounced by amending the law not to make corrections or remove anomalies but to bring in new provisions that did not exist earlier. The Legislature may have the power to remove the basis or foundation of the judicial pronouncement. Still, by introducing a new provision, the Legislature cannot overturn or set aside the judgment, that too retrospectively. The mandamus issued by the Court binds the Legislature. A judicial pronouncement is always binding unless the very fundamentals on which it is based are altered, and the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. Therefore, by introducing an amendment, the Legislature cannot overturn a judicial pronouncement and declare it to be wrong or nullity. 54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by applying the above principles, held that when Manakchand Motilal's case (supra) was decided, there was no provision providing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which, in substance, over-rules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect. 58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not struck down any legislation sought to be re-enacted after retrospectively removing any defect by the impugned provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that this was a case where the High Court had given certain benefits to the petitioners on an interpretation of the existing law. The order of mandamus was sought to be nullified by enacting the impugned provisions in a new statute. The Court held that this would be clearly an impermissible legislative exercise. 59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the overriding effect clause , based upon which the State sought to deny consequential financial benefits to the petitioners and held that the State had tried to get out of the binding effect of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and S.R. Bhagwat (Supra) address legal and factual issues similar to the present case. The State of Goa has attempted to replicate the Karnataka model, assuming it could be called a 'model' after the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the legislative exercise as an instance of impermissible legislative overruling. Based on these precedents, we believe the impugned Amendment Act must suffer the same fate. Based upon the impugned amendment Act, the State cannot ignore the binding judicial decisions in these cases. 62. Most decisions relied upon by the Learned Advocate General concerned genuine validation Acts where the defects pointed out by the judicial decisions were removed and the fundamental bases of the judicial decisions altered. Again, most of these decisions reiterate the principles in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd (Supra) and other decisions referred to above. Accordingly, by accepting the propositions of law in such decisions, the impugned Amendment Act cannot be regarded as a validation Act as contemplated by such decisions. 63. For all the above reasons, we hold that the impugned Amendment Act is an impermissible legislative override. Therefore, based u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute Law, 7th Edition at pages 411-412, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 6th Edition at Pg 276 and Justice G.P. Singh in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edition 2010 concluded that at common law, a statute becomes non-existent on its repeal, unless saved by some saving provision. 69. The arguments based on the General Clauses Act or the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 on the effect of repeal were also turned down by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court to conclude that there was no question of purporting to amend a repealed law which stood obliterated post the repeal and in the absence of any appropriate sanctioning clause. The learned Advocate General made similar arguments in the present cases. 70. The Division Benches also relied upon the decision of the Federal Court in Jatindra Nath Gupta (supra), wherein it was held that it is competent to the Legislature in exercising its plenary powers to revive or re-enact legislation which has already expired by lapse of time. The Legislature is also competent to legislate with retrospective effect, but neither of these things seems to have been done in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment Act, 2020, in so far as it applies to goods other than those included in amended Entry 54, would be ultra vires, null and void. Therefore, based upon the impugned Amendment Act, the relief granted to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.23/2021 and 229/2022 could not have been withheld. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE : 75. Regarding legislative competence, we must refer to the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, which entered force on 16.09.2016. This Amendment brought about several changes, including the insertion of Article 246-A and the substitution of new Entry 54 in List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 76. The Division Benches of the Gujarat High Court, Telangana High Court, Kerala High Court and Allahabad High Court have held that post the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, the State Legislatures lost legislative competence to make laws on taxes on sales or purchases of goods other than the six specified goods in substituted Entry 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Even in respect of the six specified goods, the State Legislature would lack the legislative competence to tax sales in the course of inter- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorporated by the said Legislature w.e.f 3rd April, 2018. The Amendment came into effect on 16th September, 2016. The said Amendment carried out by the State of Gujarat was carried out after one year to the said constitutional amendment i.e. on 3rd April, 2018. On 1st July, 2017, the Gujarat GST Act had already come into force. The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra) is thus clearly distinguishable on the facts and would not assist the case of the petitioner . 80. Thus, on facts, the present cases are similar to the facts before the Gujarat High Court. The primary Amendment in the Maharashtra Act was enacted within one year of the coming into force of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. However, Gujarat and the Goa amendments were after one year, i.e., 2018 and 2020 respectively. Further, there is a similarity between Section 174 of the Gujarat GST Act, 2017 and Section 174 of the Goa GST Act, 2017. The Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 was never formally repealed after the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, entered into force though some exercise was undertaken to align its provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority must at least claim to act in accordance with the law and hence claim that it has no obligation to pay for some reason or another. When the claims of the authority are found to be unsustainable or erroneous by the Courts, it follows that the authority has acted wrongfully in the sense of not being in accordance with the law and compensation to the party deprived must follow. If the decision of the High Court is upheld, it would mean that there can never be any wrongful retention by an authority until this Court holds that their stand is not in accordance with the law. 84. In Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), the Court noted that where interest was granted after a substantial lapse of time, interest must normally follow. The Court noted that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principal amount of tax payable remains outstanding. Therefore, they are entitled to charge interest until the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence, as the Department always contends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ION OF VESTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT 87. Further, in the facts of the present case, by giving retrospective effect to the impugned Amendment Act, the right to the interest which was crystallized in the petitioners' favour is sought to be taken away. The learned Advocate General's only contention was that the right to receive interest was not fundamental or constitutional but only a statutory right which could always be taken away. He relied on CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Ors. vs. Mishri Lal Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 739. 88. In CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression vested right could only mean a vested constitutional right since a constitutional right cannot be taken away by an Amendment of rules. The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench ruling in Railway Board vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah (1997) 6 SCC 623 in which it was held that pension is no longer treated as a bounty but was a valuable constitutional right under Articles 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution, which were then available. Since this was a constitutional right, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned Amendment Act was to perpetuate this situation. However, even this affidavit does not even bother to furnish any reasons or causes for the inordinate delay in either making refunds or sanction orders by the departmental officers. 94. Independent of the impugned Amendment Act's validity or applicability to the petitioners' case, this Court could and is directing interest payment to the petitioners as determined in the earlier judicial decisions. This is because even under the impugned Amendment Act, the State is not absolved from making sanction orders within a reasonable period. The learned Advocate General submitted that the provisions of the impugned Act may not be struck down simply because no period within which sanction orders must be made may have been specified. He submitted that even where no time limit is prescribed, the concept of reasonable time must be read into such provisions. He agreed that powers must be exercised within a reasonable time even where no time limit may have been prescribed. He even relied on decisions in support of such contentions. 95. In all these cases, there is no explanation whatsoever for the unreasonable delay in issuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Writ Petition No. 139 of 2022 Decision dated 26.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 674 of 2018. 3 Writ Petition No. 140 of 2022 Decision dated 16.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 427 of 2018 read with order dated 24.02.2020. 4 Writ Petition No. 141 of 2022 Decision dated 16.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2018 read with order dated 24.02.2020. 5 Writ Petition No. 148 of 2022 Decision dated 26.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 673 of 2018 6 Writ Petition No. 228 of 2022 Decision dated 16.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 425 of 2018 read with order dated 24.02.2020 7 Writ Petition No. 229 of 2022 Decision dated 16.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 428 of 2018 8 Writ Petition No. 350 of 2022 Decision dated 16.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 426 of 2018 read with order dated 24.02.2020. 100. The respondents are directed to deposit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
