Retrospective tax amendment cannot erase accrued refund interest or override final judicial directions on delayed refunds.

A retrospective amendment to the Goa Value Added Tax framework was analysed as a purported response to earlier rulings on interest for delayed tax refunds. The Court's reasoning was that a validating law can operate only if it removes the defect identified in the prior judgment; an enactment that merely seeks to reverse final decisions without curing the underlying invalidity is an impermissible legislative override. The amendment was also treated as ineffective to extinguish accrued entitlement to refund interest, where that entitlement had crystallised under final judicial directions and the State had retained tax monies through delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Goa Value Added Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 2020 was an impermissible legislative override that sought to nullify binding judicial decisions on interest payable on delayed tax refunds. (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment could validly take away the petitioners' crystallised entitlement to interest on delayed refund amounts.

Issue (i): Whether the Goa Value Added Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 2020 was an impermissible legislative override that sought to nullify binding judicial decisions on interest payable on delayed tax refunds.

Analysis: The earlier decisions had not rested solely on the unamended wording of the refund provisions. They were also founded on the statutory scheme, the interplay of the refund and sanction provisions, the operation of Rule 30, the principle that the Revenue cannot take advantage of its own delay, and the constitutional constraints against arbitrariness. The amendment altered the point from which interest would run, but it did not remove the fundamental defects identified by the prior judgments, particularly the delay in sanction and the unjust enrichment of the State through procrastination by its officers. A validating law can stand only if it removes the basis of the judicial decision and cures the invalidity found by the Court. Here, the amendment attempted to reverse the binding effect of the judgments rather than cure the defect.

Conclusion: The Amendment Act was held to be an impermissible legislative override and could not be used to deny implementation of the earlier final decisions.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment could validly take away the petitioners' crystallised entitlement to interest on delayed refund amounts.

Analysis: The petitioners' entitlement to interest had crystallised under the earlier judicial decisions, and the retrospective amendment was directed at extinguishing that entitlement. The Court treated the right to interest on unduly delayed refunds as a constitutionally protected incident of property and lawful taxation, and held that retrospective deprivation of such accrued benefits offended the guarantees against arbitrary State action and unlawful retention of tax monies. The amendment therefore did not merely regulate future claims but sought to undo accrued rights already declared in final judgments.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the amendment was held ineffective against the petitioners' accrued entitlement and could not defeat the earlier mandamus.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned amendment was not accepted as a valid answer to the earlier refund-interest judgments, and the respondents were directed to implement those final decisions and pay the amounts with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating amendment can survive only if it genuinely removes the defects identified in the prior judgment; a statute that merely repackages the same infirmity while attempting to nullify a final judicial mandamus is an unconstitutional legislative override, especially where it retrospectively extinguishes accrued rights and permits arbitrary retention of tax refunds.

---