Page 104 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

38 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
4.3 Learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant is a State Gov-
ernment undertaking and a creature of statute to exercise the power of eminent
domain. Power of eminent domain is a sovereign function. Appellant consists of
nominees of the State Government along with nominees of State Industrial In-
vestment and Development Corporation, Pollution Control Boards, Small Indus-
tries Development Corporation etc. For this submission, he mainly relied upon
Sections 5 & 6 of the KIAD Act and the following judgments :-
(i) Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy [2013 (8) SCC 345]
(ii) MD, HSIDC v. Hari Om Enterprises [AIR 2009 SC 218]
(iii) Jilubhainanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC 596]
4.4 It is his further submission that even if it is assumed that the func-
tion of eminent domain is done by the State, KIAD ACT is enacted for the pur-
pose of orderly development of industries across the State, which includes acqui-
sition of land, development of such land and allotment of such land and the ap-
pellant is set up under the said statute, as a limb or agent of the State Govern-
ment in that behalf and for carrying out the purposes of the KIAD Act, 1966. The
sovereign function of the State is performed through the agency of KIADB. For
this submission, he relied upon the following decisions :-
(i) Shri Ramtanu Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
[1970 (3) SCC 323]
(ii) City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Percival Joseph Pareira
[2013 SCC OnLine Bom 408]
(iii) Percival Joseph Pareira v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2009 SCC
OnLine Bom 1720]
(iv) City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v.
ACIT [2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1865]
4.5 Learned Counsel further argued that apart from being a sovereign
authority, the appellant is a statutory authority under the provisions of law. It,
inter alia, includes to promote orderly establishment of industries and to develop
industrial areas. These are in the nature of mandatory statutory obligations
which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law. For this submission, relied upon
the following decisions : -
(i) Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Senior Supdt. of Police [AIR 2004 SC
2912]
(ii) Bureau of India Standards v. CIT (Exemptions) [2013 358 ITR 78 (Del.)]
(iii) ICAI v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2013 358 ITR 91 (Delhi)]
(iv) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales v. CCE [1999 1
WLR 701]
(v) Bureau of Energy Efficiency v. CST, Delhi [2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 25 (Tri. -
Del.)]
(vi) Employee Provident Fund Organisation v. CST, Delhi [2017 (4) G.S.T.L.
294 (Tri. - Del.)] - Civil Appeal against the said decision was dis-
missed as reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. J215 (S.C.)]
(vii) Electrical Inspectorate, Govt. of Karnataka v. CST [2008 (9) S.T.R. 494
(Tri. - Bang.)]
(viii) UOI v. Kerala State Insurance Department [2016 (43) S.T.R. 173 (Ker.)]

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  120