PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020, confronts the doctrine of Separation of Power and directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow a refund of excess tax collected. Mr Rohan Lobo, the petitioner challenged the non-implementation of the Court’s decisions in Writ Petition No.424 of 2018 and connected matters despite Special Leave Petitions against the same being dismissed by the 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. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned Amendment Act on several grounds, including legislative override, legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, etc. The Petitioner is a registered dealer at Panaji ward under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (GVAT Act) involved in selling and purchasing iron ore in the State of Goa. The Assessing Officer assessed the Petitioner’s returns for 2011-12 and, by an assessment order dated 10.12.2014, determined an amount of ₹3,08,24,730/- as refundable to the Petitioner due to the excess tax paid by the Petitioner for the said year. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes sanctioned a refund of ₹2,49,05,784/- and this amount was refunded on 14.12.2017. After raising several demands for payment of such interest, the Petitioner instituted Writ Petition No.720/2019, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 19.11.2019. Accordingly, the Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the Petitioner an amount of ₹54,62,665/- together with interest at the rate of 4% per annum to be computed from 14.12.2017 till the date of actual payment within eight weeks. It was alleged that the respondents failed to honour the mandamus within the timeline or beyond. At the belated stage, the respondents filed Misc. Civil Application No.154/2020 seeking an extension. It was contended that the impugned Amendment is of impermissible legislative override and infringes the doctrine of separation of powers. The fundamental bases of the judicial decisions sought to be nullified or declared ineffective remain substantially untouched by the impugned Amendment Act. Even the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the impugned Amendment Act admits that the impugned Amendment Act was introduced simply because the interpretation in the decisions of this Court was “different from the interpretation/intentions of the Government of the said provisions of the Act, regarding payment of interest on refund of tax”. The department argued that the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was not entirely repealed by Section 174 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The repeal provision contains a saving clause that continues to govern the party’s rights after repeal. The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande directed the respondent to deposit the amounts in terms of the referred earlier decisions together with interest within four weeks and allowed the petitioner’s liberty to withdraw the said amounts after furnishing bank details.