WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This is a batch judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court delivering on 22 August 2022, involving a large cluster of writ appeals (WA Nos. 48/2020 and a long chain of connected cases) arising from notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for reopening escaped turnover for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitions challenge amendments introduced by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 (Act 11/2017 and Act 5/2018) that substituted ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ in the period for reopening and extended the third proviso to Section 25(1) to extend the period up to 31 March 2018 (and, by 2018 amendment, up to 31 March 2019). The Bench analyses the constitutional and statutory framework post-CAA 2016, the repeal of KVAT and savings under KGST, and the State’s competence to legislate post-repeal. The court upholds the impugned judgments, concluding that the amendments to Section 25(1) do not operate retrospectively to revive time-barred reassessments; hence the writ appeals fail and are dismissed. The decision engages extensively with authorities like Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, Baiju A.A., Najeem, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, and Reliance Industries in the context of retrospective vs prospective operation and legislative competence.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 The batch of writ appeals before the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) concerns the constitutionality and retroactive effect of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) made by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The appellants (State of Kerala and various SGST/ KVAT authorities) challenged reopening/reassessment notices issued under Section 25(1) KVAT for escaped turnover for years including 2010-11 and 2011-12, arguing the amendments to Section 25(1) and its third proviso—substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ and extending the period to 31 March 2019—are either retrospective or outside legislative competence post-CAA 2016 and post-repeal of KVAT Act by the KGST Act. The respondents (assessees) contended the amendments are valid and retroactive, enabling re-openings for beyond the earlier limits. The court analyzes the commencement vs operation of amendments, the saving clause under KGST, and the impact of Article 246A and the 101st Constitution Amendment on the division of taxing powers between Union and States. It relies on Baiju A.A. and M. Mohit Minerals, while rejecting other states’ decisions and the broader Hajee Abdul Shakoor framework. The court ultimately holds that the 2017 amendment is prospective for Section 25(1) and that the 2018 amendment’s wider retroactive reach is not supported; the writ appeals are dismissed, upholding the government’s position.
WA Nos. 48/2020; 1562/2019; 2/2020; 314/2020; 323/2020; 324/2020; 328/2020; 332/2020; 333/2020; 339/2020; 342/2020; 343/2020; 361/2020; 365/2020; 379/2020; 383/2020; 385/2020; 394/2020; 398/2020; 399/2020; 400/2020; 402/2020; 412/2020; 431/2020; 437/2020; 447/2020; 448/2020; 449/2020; 451/2020; 459/2020; 463/2020; 467/2020; 475/2020; 477/2020; 480/2020; 481/2020; 487/2020; 490/2020; 497/2020; 512/2020; 514/2020; 516/2020; 518/2020; 520/2020; 539/2020; 540/2020; 541/2020; 542/2020; 551/2020; 562/2020; 567/2020; 568/2020; 569/2020; 571/2020; 574/2020; 580/2020; 587/2020; 589/2020; 591/2020; 596/2020; 606/2020; 607/2020; 611/2020; 615/2020; 617/2020; 621/2020; 628/2020; 629/2020; 630/2020; 643/2020; 652/2020; 662/2020; 669/2020; 703/2020; 722/2020; 742/2020; 785/2020; 877/2020; 892/2020; 912/2020; 986/2020; 1019/2020; 1528/2020; 1558/2020; 3/2021; 7/2021; 8/2021; 10/2021; 48/2021; 51/2021; 52/2021; 75/2021; 94/2021; 98/2021; 99/2021; 117/2021; 142/2021; 143/2021; 245/2021; 284/2021; 1056/2021 This is a batch writ-appeal (WA Nos. 48/2020 and connected cases) from the Kerala High Court concerning the validity and retrospective/predictive effect of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) made by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The core issue is whether Section 25(1) of KVAT (as amended) and its third proviso could be applied to reopen assessments for escaped turnover beyond the pre-amendment time limits, especially in the wake of the 2017 introduction of GST by the Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment Act, 2016 and the subsequent repeal of KVAT with savings provisions under KGST. The appellants — the State of Kerala and tax authorities — contended that the amendments have retrospective effect and are valid despite the KVAT Act’s repeal; the respondents (traders and manufacturers) argued the amendments were prospective, and that post-CAA power allocation between Centre and States, as well as the savings clause in KGST, invalidated retroactive amendments. The judgment analyzes long-standing authorities on retrospective legislation, vested/accrued rights, and the legislature’s competence post-CAA. It ultimately concludes that the appeals fail and the impugned judgments are sustained, upholding the batch’s earlier positions and dismissing the challenges to the amendments.”,
WA.No.173 of 2019 & connected cases This batch of writ appeals concerns recognition/affiliation of CBSE/other boards for elementary education under the Right to Education Act (RTE) and the interplay with minority institutions. The Kerala Government challenged/contested the approach of tying recognition to CBSE/NOC-like parameters, arguing that the State may assess educational need (neighborhood requirement) and affiliated-board norms to grant recognition, while private minority institutions contend that the RTE Act does not apply to unaided minority schools, and that recognition should not be a precondition for their operation. The High Court examines whether educational need can be used to reject recognition or affiliation and whether minority institutions can be compelled to comply with CBSE/ICSE/State Board norms. The Court surveys CBSE/ICSE norms, Kerala Rules (RTE Rules, 2011), and constitutional guarantees under Article 21-A, Article 29(2) and 30(1), and relevant precedents (Mythri Vidya Bhavan; Sidhrajbhai; Kerala Education Bill; TMA Pai Foundation; Pramati; Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan) to resolve the balance between state regulatory interests and minority rights. It holds that educational need can guide recognition while respecting minority protections, upholds Board affiliation norms, and directs that Government Orders be examined in light of Constitution and precedent. The judgment ultimately disposes of the appeals by upholding government-favored approach for recognition via affiliation norms, while preserving minority safeguards, and clarifying that educational need is a permissible, not prohibitive, criterion for recognition under RTE.
WA 48/2020 (lead) with connected WA Nos. 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This is a consolidated set of writ appeals challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. After the KVAT Act’s repeal and the introduction of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act (KGST Act), the State enacted Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 to extend the period for reopening escaped assessments. Finance Act 2017 substituted “five years” with “six years” in Section 25(1) and amended the third proviso, with operation from 1 April 2017; Finance Act 2018 extended the period for reopening up to 31 March 2019 for assessments that could be reopened under the amendment. The appellants contend these amendments are retrospectively applicable to time-barred assessments (2010-11 and 2011-12), arguing the legislature intended to preserve accrued/rebuttable rights and respect the CAA 2016 shifts in national tax powers. Respondents challenge the retroactivity, asserting the amendments operate prospectively and/or lack competence post-repeal. The Kerala High Court, after examining numerous authorities, including Najeem, Baiju A.A., Jyoti Traders, Mohit Minerals, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., Reliance Industries, and Jyothi Traders, holds that the 2017 substitution is prospective and the 2018 extension is not valid for post-CAA constitutional structure. It dismisses all appeals, upholding the common judgment and reinforcing the view that time limits for reassessment are a matter of statutory convenience rather than vested rights.
WA 48/2020; 1562/2019; 2/2020; 314/2020; 323/2020; 324/2020; 328/2020; 332/2020; 333/2020; 339/2020; 342/2020; 343/2020; 361/2020; 365/2020; 379/2020; 383/2020; 385/2020; 394/2020; 398/2020; 399/2020; 400/2020; 402/2020; 412/2020; 431/2020; 437/2020; 447/2020; 448/2020; 449/2020; 451/2020; 459/2020; 463/2020; 467/2020; 475/2020; 477/2020; 480/2020; 481/2020; 487/2020; 490/2020; 497/2020; 512/2020; 514/2020; 516/2020; 518/2020; 520/2020; 539/2020; 540/2020; 541/2020; 542/2020; 551/2020; 562/2020; 567/2020; 568/2020; 569/2020; 571/2020; 574/2020; 580/2020; 587/2020; 589/2020; 591/2020; 596/2020; 606/2020; 607/2020; 611/2020; 615/2020; 617/2020; 621/2020; 628/2020; 629/2020; 630/2020; 643/2020; 652/2020; 662/2020; 669/2020; 703/2020; 722/2020; 742/2020; 785/2020; 877/2020; 892/2020; 912/2020; 986/2020; 1019/2020; 1528/2020; 1558/2020; 3/2021; 7/2021; 8/2021; 10/2021; 48/2021; 51/2021; 52/2021; 75/2021; 94/2021; 98/2021; 99/2021; 117/2021; 142/2021; 143/2021; 245/2021; 284/2021; 1056/2021 The batch judgment addresses whether amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) via Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 could operate retrospectively to permit reopening of assessments under Section 25(1). The court examines the interplay of the KVAT Act with the concurrent GST regime introduced by the Constitution (101st Amendment) and the replacement of KVAT by the KGST Act, including the savings provision under Section 174 KGST Act. The primary legal clash is whether the 2017 substitution of ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ in Section 25(1) (and the 2017/2018 proviso extension) is prospective or retrospective in light of the repeal of KVAT and the CAA 2016, which changed the distribution of taxing powers between the Centre and States. The bench surveys a long line of authorities (including Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Gadgil, Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, Baiju A.A., Mohit Minerals, and Reliance) to determine retroactivity, vesting of rights, and legislative competence post-repeal. The court ultimately holds that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso lacks legislative competence and that the 2017 amendment has prospective operation; the batch appeals by the State are dismissed and the impugned judgment stands, effectively protecting the assessees from reopenings beyond the pre-2017 limits. The judgment emphasizes that commencement vs operation and the presumption against retrospectivity guide interpretation, with reliance on Baiju A.A. and Mohit Minerals among others.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 (Batch) These batch writ appeals arise from assessments under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and challenges to Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 which extended the period for reopening assessments (Section 25(1)) and its third proviso. The Kerala High Court (Division Bench) deliberates whether the 2017 amendment substituting six years for five years and the 2018 amendment altering the third proviso can operate retrospectively after the 2016 Constitutional changes (CAA, 101st Amendment) and the 2017 repeal of KVAT with savings under KGST Act. The Court engages with doctrines of retrospective operation, legislative competence post-CAA, and the saving clause, weighing vested/accrued rights of taxpayers. It ultimately upholds that the 2017 amendment has prospective operation and that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso is unconstitutional, dismissing the batch appeals. The judgment references several classic cases (Calcutta Discount Co., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyoti Traders, Baiju A.A., Mohit Minerals, Reliance Industries, Najeem, Jyothi Traders) to map the contours of retrospective vs prospective effect and legislative power in tax laws around GST transition.
The Kerala High Court, in a batch of writ petitions brought by multiple private minority and non-minority CBSE/other-board-affiliated schools seeking recognition of government-facilitated provisions under the Right to Education Act and related norms, addressed whether educational need can be a ground to refuse recognition for elementary schools affiliated to CBSE or other boards. The bench, comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and V. G. Arun, examined the scope of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the interaction with Board affiliation norms. It held that while the RTE Act creates a framework for recognition, it cannot be used autocratically to stifle minority institutions, and recognizes that minority institutions have protected rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The judgment surveyed CBSE/ICSE/State Board affiliation practices, government circulars, and relevant constitutional provisions (Articles 21-A, 29(2), 30(1)) and treated educational need as a factor, not a blanket disqualification for recognition where CBSE/Board norms permit. It acknowledged that the Central Board’s affiliation norms are decisive for recognition/affiliation and that the State may regulate but not extinguish minority rights. The decision ultimately dismisses the State’s broad challenge to the government’s recognition process, while saving minority institutions from the direct application of RTE to the extent recognized by the courts, with directions on alignment to CBSE/Board norms and future government orders being subject to constitutional limits.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases This is a consolidated Kerala High Court writ petition proceedings involving Oil Marketing Companies challenging Government Orders Ext.P2 (GO 16/2020 and related) and Ext.P4 guidelines for access permissions to Petroleum Fuel Stations along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners contended that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (Rule 144) empower District Authorities to issue No Objection Certificates (NOC) for new fuel outlets, and that the GO/governance guidelines (Ext.P2 and Ext.P4) encroach upon Central domain and violate Article 19(1)(g) and other fundamental rights, were enacted without proper consultation, empirical data, or legislative backing, and thus were arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents argued that the State has jurisdiction to regulate highway access for safety and traffic, referencing the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999 and related rules, and that the MoRTH/IRC norms were in flux, with Kerala framing its own norms under Article 162. The Court undertook a detailed constitutional and statutory analysis, highlighting that access permissions for fuel stations are governed by Central Acts and State statutes, and that the District Authorities cannot, by executive guidelines, override those statutory frameworks. The judgment ultimately allowed the petitions, holding Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 invalid, set aside district refusals based on those guidelines, and directed authorities to reconsider applications under the prevailing rules as of the application dates, within two months, potentially reformulating the NOC process free of Ext.P2/P4 constraints.
This is a motor-accident-claims appeal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from a Kerala High Court decision in MACA No. 3021 of 2021, decided by Justice C. S. Dias. The appellants, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, award in OP(MV) 330/2018 arising from a 26.08.2017 accident involving a scooter and a tipper lorry (KL-10/AG 8834) driven by the first respondent. The deceased, N.T. Shihab, was 27 years old and the petitioners (his dependents) sought Rs.39.20 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal held the first respondent liable (insurer indemnifying) and awarded Rs.19,55,000 with 9% interest and costs. The insurer contends four grounds: (i) contributory negligence by the deceased (insufficient consideration of partial fault), (ii) excess compensation, (iii) inclusion of love-and-affection/pain-and-suffering heads, and (iv) high interest. The High Court, relying on judicial precedents including Pazhaniammal, Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Vineesh J, Kiran Singh, and related decisions, upholds the Tribunal’s findings on liability, notional income (Rs.9,000/month), future prospects (40%), deduction (1/3), and the multiplier (17). It confirms conventional heads and dismissed the appeal, noting no merit. The decision reflects the court’s discretion to award reasonable compensation without rigid mathematical exactitude and declines to admit the appeal at threshold.
Green Vistas Infrastructure Projects, a joint venture engaged in constructing a five-tower residential project in Kakkanad, challenged an intra-court order directing the SEIAA/SEAC to dispose of environmental clearance in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 and the related review order. The writ petition contended that, based on a 2006 No Objection Certificate (Exhibit P1) issued by the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, along with other approvals (Exhibits P2–P4) from Fire & Rescue, Southern Naval Command, and the Airports Authority of India, construction had commenced before the EIA Notification came into force on 14 September 2006, and that the Kerala Building Rules in force at the Panchayat level were not yet applicable. The petitioner emphasized pre-2006 satellite imagery and a building-activity register indicating earth movement and piling prior to the notification, arguing that pre-existing projects were exempt from prior environmental clearance under Clause 2 of the EIA Notification, and that a 21 November 2006 circular supported non-applicability if state approvals existed. The respondents contended there is no conclusive evidence of pre-notification construction; SEAC/SEIAA found violation for two towers; they argued the EIA regime applies to new projects and expansions, and that the deeming provisions in Clause 8(iii) of the EIA Notification do not apply absent a final recommendation. The High Court upheld the impugned judgments, holding that pre-notification commencement was not proven, that the EIA regime applies, and that the appeal fails. The effect is to require environmental clearance for the remaining phases, with penalties where applicable.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021 This batch of writ appeals challenges the validity and interpretation of reassessment notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) for escaped turnover. The core issue is whether amendments to Section 25(1) enacted through Kerala Finance Act 2017 (Fact 11/2017) and Kerala Finance Act 2018 (Fact 5/2018) alter the period of limitation for reopening assessments and whether such amendments have retrospective or prospective effect in the wake of the Constitution (101st) Amendment and the repeal of KVAT with savings under KGST. The Supreme Court, Kerala and other High Courts have engaged with the question of whether amendments substituting “five years” with “six years” (and the third proviso) operate retrospectively or prospectively, especially after the 2016 constitutional changes that redefined taxing powers between the Union and states. The Kerala High Court’s earlier decision in Najeem’s case was contested; the Division Bench agrees with Baiju A.A and related authorities that the 2017 amendment is prospective in operation, while the 2018 proviso extends beyond legislative competence, being unconstitutional post-CAA. The judgment ultimately dismisses the appeals, sustaining the view that reassessment rights under pre-2017 provisions cannot be revived beyond the statutory window, except as clarified by the 2017 amendment and save as otherwise provided by the 2018 provisions which are invalid.
WA 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This batch of writ appeals arises from challenges to the Kerala KVAT regime amendments surrounding Section 25(1) and the third proviso, post-repeal of KVAT and the advent of the KGST regime. The Kerala High Court (Division Bench of S. V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji JJ.) adjudicated whether amendments via Finance Acts 2017 (Act 11/2017) and 2018 (Act 5/2018) could operate retrospectively to reopen past assessments and, in particular, whether the extended six-year window for re-opening, and the saving provisions under the KGST Act, were constitutionally valid. The court engaged with constitutional amendments (CAA 2016), Article 246A, Entry 54 of List II, and the savings clause under KGST Act (Section 174), as well as the interplay with the KVAT Act, the pre-existing vested rights of taxpayers, and the presumption against retrospective legislation. It ultimately concluded that the batch of appeals should fail, upholding the High Court’s cautious view that the amendments to Section 25(1) and the third proviso were not—at least in broad terms—legislation permitting retroactive reopening to the extent claimed, and dismissed the appeals accordingly.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This judgment addresses a batch of writ appeals challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The core issue is whether amendments introduced by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 to Section 25(1) of KVAT operate retrospectively or only prospectively, in light of the post-CAA 2016 constitutional changes (Article 246A) and the repeal of KVAT upon introduction of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Act. The 2017 amendment substituted “five years” with “six years” for the period of reopening, and the 2018 amendment extended the sunset for certain assessments from 31 March 2018 to 31 March 2019 via a third proviso. The High Court of Kerala, in a two-judge Bench, analyzes legislative competence, the intention of the Legislature, the saving provisions in KGST, and the impact of the CAA 2016, ultimately holding that the batch appeals fail and are to be dismissed. The court emphasizes the primacy of legislative intent, the presumption against retrospective operation, and relies on established authorities such as Baiju A.A., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., and Mohit Minerals, while distinguishing other authorities. Final disposition: appeals dismissed.
WA 48/2020;1562/2019;2/2020;314/2020;323/2020;324/2020;328/2020;332/2020;333/2020;339/2020;342/2020;343/2020;361/2020;365/2020;379/2020;383/2020;385/2020;394/2020;398/2020;399/2020;400/2020;402/2020;412/2020;431/2020;437/2020;447/2020;448/2020;449/2020;451/2020;459/2020;463/2020;467/2020;475/2020;477/2020;480/2020;481/2020;487/2020;490/2020;497/2020;512/2020;514/2020;516/2020;518/2020;520/2020;539/2020;540/2020;541/2020;542/2020;551/2020;562/2020;567/2020;568/2020;569/2020;571/2020;574/2020;580/2020;587/2020;589/2020;591/2020;596/2020;606/2020;607/2020;611/2020;615/2020;617/2020;621/2020;628/2020;629/2020;630/2020;643/2020;652/2020;662/2020;669/2020;703/2020;722/2020;742/2020;785/2020;877/2020;892/2020;912/2020;986/2020;1019/2020;1528/2020;1558/2020;3/2021;7/2021;8/2021;10/2021;48/2021;51/2021;52/2021;75/2021;94/2021;98/2021;99/2021;117/2021;142/2021;143/2021;245/2021;284/2021;1056/2021 This batch of writ appeals challenges a common judgment dated 06 December 2019 in W.P.(C) 9963/2019 and connected matters, arising under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and the transition to the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act (KGST). The core issue is whether amendments to Section 25(1) KVAT (via Kerala Finance Act 2017) and the corresponding third proviso, together with later changes (Finance Act 2018), can operate retrospectively to extend the period for reopening escaped turnover beyond what pre-existed, in a post-CAA 2016 constitutional framework. The Kerala High Court undertakes a meticulous constitutional and statutory construction analysis, balancing the right to levy taxes with the legislature’s power to amend, and considers Article 246A, the KVAT repeal and savings under KGST, and the effect of the CAA 2016. It concludes that the amendments, while intending to extend the re-opening period, are prospective (not retrospective) with respect to the KVAT regime, and that State legislation cannot revive extinguished rights after repeal. Relying on Baiju A.A. and Mohit Minerals, the Court holds that the reassessment notices for years where limitation had expired cannot be validly issued under the amended provisions. The appeals are dismissed, upholding the judgment below and clarifying the interaction of pre-GST and GST regimes in Kerala.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021 This batch of writ appeals, heard together before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, concerns reassessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and the consequential amendments introduced by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, and their compatibility with the 2016 Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment and the introduction of a GST regime. The petitioners challenged the Assessing Officers’ notices to reopen assessments for years post-2010-11 and 2011-12, arguing that the amendments to Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act (substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’) and the third proviso—especially after the 2017 start and the 2018 extension—either retrospectively extend rights or are beyond legislative competence after KVAT’s repeal and the advent of KGST. The court analyses the commencement and operation dates in the Finance Acts, the effect of the CAA 2016, the KVAT repeal in 2017, the saving provisions under KGST, and decisions such as Baiju A.A., Mohit Minerals, and Hajee Abdul Shakoor. It concludes that, in the circumstances, the reassessment notices issued within the relevant windows cannot be sustained and that the amendments do not have the intended retrospective effect. The batch ends with dismissal of the appeals and sustains the impugned judgments.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2583 OF 2006 The petitioner, Bhasi, challenging his conviction under Section 55(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba, as affirmed on appeal, seeks relief in revision. The trial record shows arrest and seizure of contraband at his residence on 01.10.1995, with Exts P1–P5 and MO1–MO7 forming the evidentiary basis. He was convicted to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 25,000 fine, with default imprisonment. He assails the conviction on procedural deficits: lack of arrest memo/arrest intimation, absence of specimen seals and their description in Ext. P1 mahazar, and the non-production/marking of the forwarding note detailing sample custody and forwarding to the chemical analyst. The prosecution’s chain of custody and the date of forwarding to the laboratory are thus cast into doubt. The court notes that while revisional jurisdiction is limited, it can scrutinize strict compliance with statutory formalities under the Abkari Act, citing Baburaj v. State of Kerala and Sathi v. State of Kerala. It also relies on a host of Kerala and Supreme Court authorities emphasizing the necessity of corroborated chain-of-custody, proper sealing, and timely forwarding. The absence of arrest memo, specimen seals, and forwarding notes, coupled with non-examination of the Thondy Clerk, leads to reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the accused acquitted; bail, if any, is cancelled and he is released.
WA 48/2020 (and connected cases); WP(C) 9963/2019 This batch judgment deals with writ appeals challenging notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT, 2003) seeking to reopen assessments for escaped turnover for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, in the context of legislative amendments introduced by Kerala Finance Act 2017 (11/2017) and Finance Act 2018 (5/2018). The court examines whether these amendments, which substituted “five years” with “six years” in Section 25(1) and extended the proviso period for reopening assessments, could operate retrospectively given the implementation of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and the repeal of KVAT with the introduction of the Kerala GST regime (KGST Act) in 2017. The bench analyzes the delicate interplay between the pre-GST VAT framework and the new GST regime, the saving provisions, and the Parliament/State Legislature’s powers under Article 246A to legislate concurrently after the 2016 amendment. The court emphasizes the commencement vs operation distinction, and whether amendments can revive time-barred rights after repeal. It ultimately holds that the 2017 substitution is prospective; the 2018 proviso extension oversteps State legislative competence post-repeal; savings cannot validate such amendments; hence the writ petitions are disposed of in favour of the respondents, with the appeals dismissed.
WA Nos. 48/2020; 1562/2019; 2/2020; 314/2020; 323/2020; 324/2020; 328/2020; 332/2020; 333/2020; 339/2020; 342/2020; 343/2020; 361/2020; 365/2020; 379/2020; 383/2020; 385/2020; 394/2020; 398/2020; 399/2020; 400/2020; 402/2020; 412/2020; 431/2020; 437/2020; 447/2020; 448/2020; 449/2020; 451/2020; 459/2020; 463/2020; 467/2020; 475/2020; 477/2020; 480/2020; 481/2020; 487/2020; 490/2020; 497/2020; 512/2020; 514/2020; 516/2020; 518/2020; 520/2020; 539/2020; 540/2020; 541/2020; 542/2020; 551/2020; 562/2020; 567/2020; 568/2020; 569/2020; 571/2020; 574/2020; 580/2020; 587/2020; 589/2020; 591/2020; 596/2020; 606/2020; 607/2020; 611/2020; 615/2020; 617/2020; 621/2020; 628/2020; 629/2020; 630/2020; 643/2020; 652/2020; 662/2020; 669/2020; 703/2020; 722/2020; 742/2020; 785/2020; 877/2020; 892/2020; 912/2020; 986/2020; 1019/2020; 1528/2020; 1558/2020; 3/2021; 7/2021; 8/2021; 10/2021 This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns the validity and retroactivity of amendments to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT) effected by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 (notably Section 25(1) and its third proviso), in the wake of the Constitutional changes culminating in GST. The petitions challenged notices to reopen assessments under Section 25(1) for years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and argued that amendments extended the time limit for reopening (five to six years) and extended the expiration date of the third proviso. The Kerala High Court held that the 2017 amendment (six-year period) is prospective and not retrospective, and that the 2018 amendment (which would extend further) lacked legislative competence after the 2016 Constitution Amendment and the repeal of KVAT, given the saving clause and concurrent GST regime. The judgment discusses Article 246A and the distribution of taxing powers pre- and post-CAA, and it cites a raft of authorities including Baiju A.A., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, Mohit Minerals, Reliance Industries (Gujarat), and others. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, with the court upholding the impugned KVAT amendments and the approach to commencement versus operation of the amended provisions.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) challenges the validity and retrospective/ prospective effect of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) brought by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, and the parallel savings/ repeal framework under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act (KGST) that followed the introduction of GST. The core dispute centers on whether Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, as amended (to substitute the words ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ and to modify the third proviso), can be applied to reopen assessments for years prior to the enactments, notably 2010-11 and 2011-12, and in the context of the transition from KVAT to KGST post-CAA 2016. The High Court examines (i) commencement versus operation of amendments; (ii) whether amendments have retrospective effect versus prospective operation; (iii) constitutional validity of the legislature’s power to amend KVAT post-repeal in 2017 and to enact savings under KGST; (iv) the weight of precedents on retrospective amendments (Baiju A.A., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount, Jyoti Traders, S.C. Prashar, Ahmedabad Mfg., etc.); and (v) the impact of Article 246A and the 101st Constitutional Amendment on the division of taxing powers between Centre and States. The judgment ultimately holds that the challenged amendments are prospective, that rights accrued prior to 31.03.2017 cannot be revived by post-CAA amendments, and disposes of the batch by dismissing the appeals.
