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 Division Bench decision of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, delivered on 22 August 2022, arising from a batch of writ appeals (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; 48/2020; 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 writ petition challenges the non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying in Government Puramboke land under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The petitioner, Sanil P.M., submitted Ext. P3 on 8.11.2018 seeking an NOC under Section 4(2)(d) of the KMMC Rules, with Ext. P6 (enquiry report, 30.11.2018) and Ext. P7 (Survey sketch, 22.12.2018) indicating eligibility. Despite recommendations, the application remained pending. Subsequently, the Government issued guidelines via G.O.(Ms) No. 28/2021/RD (dated 28.01.2021); earlier, on 18.01.2020, a Government directive advised district authorities not to process NOCs for quarrying on Government land until guidelines were formulated. The petitioner argued that pending applications should be considered under pre-existing Ext. P4 guidelines, citing judgments directing consideration of such applications. The respondents contended no individual has a right to quarry on Government puramboke land, that quarrying requires permissions under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules, and that the 2021 guidelines are valid and binding. After examining the timeline, the court found that the 2019 geologist’s report and the 2020 directive interdicting processing, along with the 2021 guidelines, precluded grant of relief. The court dismissed the petition, holding there is no vested right to an NOC and that government policy and guidelines govern such decisions.
MAT.APPEAL NO.160 OF 2023 This is a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife, Aswathi R. Pillai, challenging a Family Court Pathanamthitta order in O.P.(HMA) No.1087/2019 (with RP No. 8/2021) whereby an ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty was passed against her on 07.02.2020 and subsequent orders denying condonation of delay and the set-aside of the ex parte decree. The appellant contends that the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree is only a short period (with reliance on suo motu orders of the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 period that extended limitation), and that the Family Court erred in rejecting the condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent-husband argues that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings, consciously abstained from contesting for two years, and could prejudice him if the ex parte decree were set aside after such a long delay. On admission, the High Court, with a two-judge bench, examines the law on condonation of delay, liberal construction of “sufficient cause,” and the impact of Covid-19 limitation extensions (Suo Motu orders and subsequent Supreme Court rulings). The court ultimately notes that the delay is to be treated liberally in line with G.P. Srivastava, Peeves Enterprises, Katiji, and Esha Bhattacharjee, and quashes the Family Court orders, allowing the RP and restoring the original petition to be disposed of on merits within three months. The judgment emphasizes that extinction of delay due to pandemic-like circumstances should not prejudice a party’s right to a fair adjudication on merits.
This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging MC No.2/2013 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, directing the petitioner, Raju Thomas, to pay maintenance to his wife, Valsamma Joseph, Rs. 2,500 per month from the date of petition. The respondent-wife had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 7,500 per month, asserting she had no independent income, was living apart since 2008, and that she had three children to support; she is a graduate nurse employed abroad and allegedly mentally ill. The petitioner admitted the marriage and three children but contended the wife is living separately without sufficient cause and he has to maintain the children. He claimed a monthly income of about Rs. 24,000 after deductions, while the wife asserted he earned Rs. 35,000 and had no independent income of her own. The Family Court consolidated three proceedings—including maintenance, a divorce petition, and a claim for return of money and gold—and ultimately ordered Rs. 2,500 per month for the wife. The revision petition argues illegality/impropriety in the order. The High Court relies on Rajnesh v. Neha, Captain Kaushal and Bhuwan Mohan Singh to reaffirm maintenance as a social-justice remedy and to discuss notional income concepts. It finds no illegality and dismisses the petition, upholding the Family Court’s order.
WA No. 48 of 2020 and connected matters This judgment concerns a batch of writ appeals filed against orders under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 25(1) for escaped turnover for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The core issue is whether amendments to Section 25(1) brought by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, which respectively substituted the words five years with six years and extended the period for reopening assessments (with two different operative dates for commencement and operation), can operate retrospectively after the KVAT Act was repealed in 2017 in light of the Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment Act, 2016 (CAA) and the savings clause under the KGST Act. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, held that the 2017 amendment (six-year period) is prospective for the 2010-11 reassessment, thereby not enabling reopening beyond 31.03.2017. The 2018 amendment, purporting to extend to 31.03.2019, was held to be beyond the legislative competence post-repeal of KVAT after CAA, and thus not valid for reopening. The court distinguished earlier decisions, relied on several classic cases on retrospective legislation, and ultimately dismissed the appeals, holding that the reassessment notices issued under the unamended provision could not be sustained for the relevant years. The decision engages a complex interplay of statutory interpretation, constitutional distribution of taxing powers, and the evolving framework of GST.
MANU K SATHYAN, the first accused in Crime No. 83/2023 of Munambam Police Station, seeks regular bail. He was allegedly found in possession of twenty-three bottles of Honeybee brandy while transporting them in a car on 29 January 2023. The offences cited include Sections 13, 55(i), 55(d) of the Kerala Abkari Act and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with further references to related Abkari Act provisions and IPC sections as the investigation proceeds. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting that this is the eighth crime registered against the petitioner and that he has seven criminal antecedents, including two offences under Section 452 IPC and one under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, suggesting a risk of reoffending if released. The court, after perusing the Investigating Officer’s report and materials, notes substantial progress in the investigation and custody since 31 January 2023, but also considers the petitioner’s aggregated antecedents as a serious factor. Taking these into account, the court grants bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent further offences. The order closes with directions for bonds, restrictions on tampering with witnesses, routine appearances before the IO, and prohibition from committing further offences during the bail period.
This is a common judgment disposing of W.P.(C) Nos.16984/2020 and connected cases, challenging the Kochi Municipal Corporation’s reformulation of property tax under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. The petitions arise in the wake of the Council’s fixation of basic property tax rates and the Government’s enabling notification under section 233(2)–(5). Petitioners, a broad cross-section of building owners, associations and residents, contend that the fixation and subsequent revised tax were not properly implemented, citing failures to publish Form-1 notices in two newspapers, to conduct site inspections, to issue notifications under section 233(5), and other procedural lapses. Respondents argue substantial compliance with the statutory scheme: the final rates were fixed within the prescribed limits, forms of publication were completed (including full Form-1 publication in a newspaper and publication on the Municipality’s noticeboard), assessments were entered into the property tax register, and challenges proceed via the appellate route under Rule 16. The High Court upholds the basic property tax fixation but constrains the levy to arrears for three years prior to the date of demand, holding that arrears beyond three years cannot be recovered. It also endorses the doctrine of substantial compliance in the context of tax administration, while clarifying the interplay between sections, rules and constitutional provisions. All connected petitions are disposed of in a common order.
WA No. 173 of 2019 & connected This batch of writ appeals concerns the recognition and affiliation of CBSE/ICSE/private schools in Kerala under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and related state rules. The State of Kerala and its General Education Department argued that the process of granting recognition must be harmonized with CBSE/ICSE norms and that educational need in localities could justify a cautious approach to recognizing new CBSE-affiliated schools, to prevent mushrooming and to ensure compliance with Schedule norms and the affiliating boards. The petitioners, largely private minority and non-minority managements and CBSE/ICSE‑affiliations, contended that the RTE Act cannot be applied to unaided minority institutions (and not to minority boards), and that recognition cannot be conditioned beyond the Board’s own norms. The High Court, in a Division Bench decision, held that while the RTE Act applies to elementary education, a blanket rejection of recognition merely on ‘educational need’ is ultra vires; a balancing approach is required: recognition under the RTE Act must be subject to Schedule norms and the Board’s affiliation norms. It affirmed minority rights under Article 30 but held that minority institutions may still have to obtain affiliation from recognized boards for further education paths. The court disposed of the appeals with declaratory orders, allowed some government orders to be challenged, and provided directions balancing RTE, CBSE/ICSE norms and minority rights.
WA 48/2020; connected cases: WA 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 the constitutional validity and retrospective/ prospective operation of amendments introduced to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, in the context of reassessment/reopening provisions under Section 25(1) KVAT. Following the 2016 Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and the repeal of KVAT with effect from 22 June 2017, the Kerala Legislature attempted to extend the period for reopening assessments (from five to six years) and to extend the notices under the third proviso to Section 25(1). The Kerala High Court (Division Bench) examines whether such amendments operate retrospectively or prospectively, and whether the State Legislature possessed competence to enact them post-CAA 2016, given the savings clause in KGST Act (Section 174) and the concurrent powers under Article 246A. The Court considers foundational authorities on retrospective legislation, vested/accrued rights, and the legislative intent, including Baiju A.A. v. State Tax Officer, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyothi Traders, Calcutta Discount Co., Mohit Minerals, and Gujarat/Telangana decisions. The judgment ultimately holds that the amendments to KVAT Section 25(1) (both the substitution of ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ and the longer sunset for reopening in the third proviso) are not available to reopen assessments where limitation had already expired, and that the KGST saving clause cannot validate post-repeal legislative amendments. Result: the writ appeals are dismissed.
The decision engages closely with the tension between legislative competence post-CAA 2016 and the right to rely on accrued rights, the interpretation of “save as otherwise provided,” and the appropriate application of retroactivity norms in tax statutes.
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 The judgment deals with a batch of writ appeals challenging the validity and retrospective nature of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) made by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, and the corresponding saving provisions under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act (KGST). The core issues centre on whether the amendment substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ for the period of reopening (Section 25(1) KVAT) and the third proviso thereto could operate retrospectively after the repeal of KVAT under the constitutional changes brought by the 101st Amendment, and whether the 2018 extension to 31 March 2019 could apply to pre-repeal assessments. The judgment surveys a web of authorities (Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyoti Traders, Calcutta Discount Co., S.C. Prashar, Gadgil, Jyothi Traders, Mohit Minerals, Reliance Industries, Sri Sri Engineering Works, etc.) and distills a principle: the legislature may enact retrospective measures only where clearly expressed or implied; otherwise, amendments are prospective. The court ultimately holds that the 2017 substitution is prospective and the 2018 proviso substantially cannot revive pre-2017 reassessments post-repeal, though the decision engages extensively with constitutional changes post-CAA 2016 and the concomitant GST framework. The batch of appeals is dismissed with this reasoning.
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 judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, sitting at Ernakulam, deals with a batch of writ appeals challenging amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) effected by the Kerala Finance Acts of 2017 and 2018, in the wake of the introduction of GST and Article 246A. The core legal issue is whether the amendments extending the period of re-opening assessments under Section 25(1) KVAT (and its third proviso) operate retrospectively or prospectively, and whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact amendments to a repealed KVAT Act post-CAA 2016. The petitions argued that notices issued for reassessment of escaped turnover for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were invalid as the unamended five-year period had already expired; the petitions also challenged the competence of the State Legislature to amend KVAT Act after repeal in 2017. The court analyses the text of the amendments, their commencement and operation dates (01.04.2017 for 2017 Act, and 01.04.2018 for the 2018 Act), and the saving/consistency provisions in KGST. It cites Baiju A.A. and Mohit Minerals to discuss the constitutional framework (CAA 2016, Article 246A) and the concurrent power to legislate GST-related matters. The court ultimately holds that the substituted six-year period and the third proviso amendment have prospective operation, and that the reassessment notices for 2010-11 and 2011-12 cannot be revived beyond the new window. The batch of appeals is dismissed.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC 3757 of 2015) before the Kerala High Court, arising from CC No. 842/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam, involving petitions filed by two accused (the petitioners)—a wife and her husband—who faced alleged offences under sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The allegations relate to a failed sale of property: a 5.5 cents plot was allegedly agreed to be sold to the de facto complainant for ₹10 lakh, ₹5 lakh paid as advance, and a promise to deliver title deeds and execute a sale deed. The petitioners allegedly sold the property to a third party during the agreement’s validity, prompting the complaint that led to a police investigation (Crime No. 738/2013). The petitioners contend that even accepting the final report, no offence is made out because breach of contract alone does not prove deceit or a dishonest intention at inception, and civil remedies were available. The respondent argues that civil wrongs can accompany or ground criminal offences and that the records show a misleading transfer of property. The High Court, after examining the matter and various precedents, found no inception-level fraudulent intent and held that quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is warranted to prevent harassment. The petition is allowed, and the final report and related proceedings are quashed.
This is a criminal appeal by the appellant challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The trial court, after a trial, convicted Appu for possession of 2 liters of arrack at Nooluvally Junction on 23.04.2005 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The prosecution’s case rests on the arrest at the scene and seizure of the contraband; however, the defense challenged the arrest as doubtful since there is no arrest memo or arrest intimation placed before the Court. The appellants relied on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal to emphasize mandatory arrest documentation and attestation requirements. The judgment scrutinizes the prosecution’s failure to produce the arrest memo and the intimation, and emphasizes that arrest is a foundational requirement for linking the accused to the contraband. The court also analyzes the chain of custody for the contraband and the sample sent for chemical analysis, highlighting delays, the absence of the specimen seal, and the lack of examination of officials who handled the sample. Citing Sasidharan, Sathi, Ravi, Ramankutty, and Rajamma, the court holds that the absence of proper chain-of-custody, delayed production, and unproven analysis undermines the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the conviction is set aside and the appeal is allowed, acquitting the accused and ordering his release.
The petitioner, K.P. Muraleedharan, is the sole accused in C.C. No.192/2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, and had previously testified as PW1 in C.C. No.113/2008 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, based on a FIR by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging offences under sections 7 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In Annexure-A2 the Special Judge acquitted the accused but observed that PW1 gave mutually exclusive statements before the Dy. SP and in court, and concluded that PW1 had shown a lack of regard for truth and might have falsified evidence. Consequently, the Manager of the Vigilance Court filed Annexure-A1, a complaint for giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC. The petitioner challenged Annexure-A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing: (i) the Manager lacked written authorization to file the complaint; (ii) the Special Court did not expressly find it expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute; (iii) there is no obligation to state truth in a first information statement. The Kerala High Court ultimately quashes Annexure-A1 for non-compliance with Section 340 Cr.P.C., noting that the Special Court’s direction to initiate proceedings can’t substitute a written authorization and an explicit expediency finding; the petition is allowed.
Minu M filed OP (FC) No.587 of 2022 challenging Ext.P7 of the Family Court, Thodupuzha, in I.A. No.2 of 2022 in O.P.(HM) No.206/2022, which directed visitation rights to the respondent father for two children, Nandana A. Nair (aged 8) and Keerthana A. Nair (aged 3½). The matter arose in the context of a pending matrimonial dissolution and a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act proceeding, with allegations regarding the maternal grandmother’s cruel conduct and alleged witchcraft; the family court’s interactions with the children and counselling were part of the record. The petitioner argues that Ext.P7 should be set aside; she asserts concerns about the children’s welfare and safety, and contends that the disputed issues and current family dynamics require sensitive handling, not overnight or unrestricted visitation. The respondent contends that continuing paternal contact is essential for the children’s emotional well-being, citing the welfare principle that limits on visitation should be warranted only for compelling reasons. The court relies on Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) and Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar (AIR 2022 SC 476) to emphasise that the welfare of the child governs custody decisions and that, ordinarily, visitation rights accompany custody changes. The judgment disposes of the petition by modifying Ext.P7: the father shall have visitation on alternate Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Family Court, Thodupuzha, with the mother bringing the children there, and with future modification possible on change of circumstances.
This batch of writ appeals challenges the validity and retrospective or prospective operation of amendments to the Kerala KVAT Act, 2003, effected by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 in the wake of the Goods and Services Tax regime. The core dispute is whether Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, as amended, and its third proviso, could operate retrospectively to permit reopening of assessments for escapement or under- assessment beyond earlier time-limits, and whether the 2018 amendment extending the period to 31.03.2019 is constitutionally valid given the repeal of KVAT and the introduction of KGST with savings clauses. The Kerala High Court surveys constitutional and statutory principles, including Article 246A, the sunset/CAA framework, and a body of case law about retrospective amendments, vesting/accrued rights, and the power to legislate post-repeal. Ultimately, the court holds that the amendments are to be read prospectively, and that the State Legislature lacked competence to extend powers post-repeal; accordingly, the batch of appeals is dismissed. The judgment articulates the prevailing view that retrospective amendments to tax statutes require express language or necessary implications; it cites Bajju A A and Mohit Minerals, and engages with the Hajee Abdul Shakoor line of authorities as distinguishable from the Kerala position.
This writ petition challenges revenue-recovery actions initiated for welfare fund contributions due from the petitioner, a stage carriage bus owner. Final determination orders dated 04.08.1995 (Rs. 8,342) and 31.01.1996 (Rs. 19,020) were set aside by Government Ext.P2, directing fresh determination. The Board then re-assessed, issuing a revised final determination on 31.01.1999 (Rs. 13,923 with interest). Based on this, revenue-recovery proceedings were pursued through Form 24 requisitions under Section 69(2) RR Act (1995–1996) and demand notices under Section 7 (1996). The petitioner contends Ext.P2 annulled the liability and that no valid fresh requisition/demand exists for the re‑assessed amount, rendering recovery barred by limitation. The Government and Board counter that rights to recover public revenue under RR Act can survive Ext.P2 via Section 69(6) modifications and that initiation occurred with the 1995 requisitions; Article 112 limitations do not apply to MTWBF dues, and the 30.07.1999/07.06.2008 letters evidence ongoing recovery. The Court surveys Halimathu Beevi, Kalliyanikutty, Molly Soman, Raveendran Nair, Burrakur Coal, Philips India, and State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty among others to decide whether the recovery is time‑barred. The judgment ultimately holds that recovery is barred by limitation, and directs acceptance of land tax if no impediments remain, allowing the petition.”
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 judgment of the Kerala High Court in a cluster of writ appeals contends the legality and temporal reach of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) made to extend the period for reopening escaped assessments in the GST regime transition. The court examines whether the Kerala Finance Act 2017, substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ for Section 25(1) of KVAT, operates retrospectively or prospectively, and whether the 2018 Finance Act (amending the third proviso) was constitutionally competent. The proceedings traverse doctrinal touchstones such as the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act 2016, Article 246A, and the saving provisions under KGST, alongside classic tax-law retrospection jurisprudence (Calcutta Discount Co., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyoti Traders, Najeem, Baiju A.A.). The court ultimately holds that the 2017 amendment is prospective in nature and that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso exceeds legislative competence, resulting in dismissal of the writ appeals and guiding future reassessment limits in the KVAT framework within the GST era.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 988 OF 2018 This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, GOPAKUMAR, challenging a concurrent conviction for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and the accompanying sentence. The underlying case arose from C.C. No. 189/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, and is allied to CRA 241/2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge-7, Thiruvananthapuram. The cheque in question, for Rs. 15,00,000, dated 20.08.2020, was alleged to have been issued by the accused in discharge of a debt to the husband of the complainant, who subsequently died on 26.08.2020. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a year’s simple imprisonment with a Rs. 15,00,000 fine, along with default imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed. In revising, the High Court refrained from re-appreciating evidence in the absence of a gross miscarriage of justice and relied on several Supreme Court precedents to delimit the scope of revisional power. The High Court ultimately allowed the petition in part: it confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a one-day imprisonment, Rs. 15,00,000 as fine, to be treated as compensation under Cr.P.C. 357(1)(b), with four months to pay. The petitioner is directed to surrender by 20.11.2023, and the execution of sentence is deferred until 19.11.2023. The revision petition stands allowed in part.
Petitioner Sreelall B, enlisted in CISF in 1989, faced a major penalty of removal after an ex parte disciplinary inquiry for absence without leave. He challenges the order, seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 41 CCS Pension Rules, and contends he had completed ten years and two months of service. He relies on the Supreme Court's Mahinder Dutt Sharma v Union of India & Ors (2014) 11 SCC 684 which lays down a multi-factor framework for Rule 41 claims, and on the 2016 circular Ext P6 stating that pension and compassionate allowance require a minimum qualifying service of ten years. The petitioner also notes Ext P3 (7.1.2023) was issued mechanically and that the 20-year threshold was incorrect. Respondents submit the petitioner’s absence and desertion bar any pension or compassionate relief and that Ext P3 reflects policy requiring longer service. The High Court considers Rule 41’s proviso permitting compassionate allowances for those deserving special consideration and applies the Mahinder Dutt Sharma criteria (moral turpitude, dishonesty toward the employer, personal gains, harm to third parties, overall reasonableness). The court holds compassionate allowance can be sanctioned even if the 20-year bar is not met, quashes Ext P3, and directs reconsideration consistent with Mahinder Dutt Sharma and Ext P6, with guidance on qualifying service.
