Page 75 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 177
the CEGAT’s order is unreasonable. CEGAT’s order was passed on
21st June, 2001 so one could expect either the matter to be taken to
higher up, and for this, under law ninety days time is given and on
expiry of this time the department was expected to refund this mon-
ey, since it is a Government Department. So, unlike the ordinary citi-
zen another three months of grace time may be given for taking ac-
tion. So, the department should have released this amount within the
reasonable time of six months, namely by 31st December, 2001. Un-
fortunately, this has not been done. So, I think after expiry of 31st De-
cember, 2001 the Government has no justification for withholding this
money, and I hold this is an negligent inaction on the part of the Gov-
ernment. The Government cannot deprive the enjoyment of the prop-
erty without due recourse to law and this withholding cannot be
termed to be a lawful one nor an established procedure under the
law. Therefore, this inaction is wholly unjustified and this has really
caused the deprivation of the petitioner’s enjoyment of the property
namely the aforesaid amount. Therefore, this is positively violative of
the provision of Article 300A in Chapter IV under Part XII of the Con-
stitution of India. When there is breach of constitutional right either
by omission or by commission by the State such breach can be reme-
died under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner
could have earned interest during this period but because of the
withholding this could not be done. I find in support of my observa-
tion from the judgment cited by Mr. Chowdhury as above. In that
case a pre-deposit amount was directed to be refunded with interest
at the rate of 15% per annum. Of course at that point of time the rate
of interest of Bank might be higher, but having regard to the present
facts and circumstances of this case the rate of interest as allowable
now admittedly by the Reserve Bank of India in case of its bond not
exceeding 8% per annum, will be appropriate. Therefore, I direct the
respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the aforesaid amount
of Rs. 10 lacs to be calculated from January 2002 till 3rd April, 2003
when the payment of principal amount was effected. This payment of
interest shall be made within a period of three months from the date
of communication of this order. However, there will be no interest for
this period.”
18. A Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.T. Planta-
tion Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka reported at (2011) 9 SCC 1 in para
143 held that :
……
(e) Public purpose is a pre-condition for deprivation of a person
from his property under Article 300A and the right to claim compen-
sation is also inbuilt in that Article and when a person is deprived of
his property the State has to justify both the grounds which may de-
pend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose
of the legislature and other related factors.
……
19. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Doshi
Printing Press reported at MANU/GJ/0420/2015 held that :-
16. From the conjoint reading of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Others
(supra) and the latter decision of the Larger Bench in the case of
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  75