This bail application arises in Crime No.179/2025 registered at Anjuthengu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order/judgment in Bail Application No.2721/2025. The petitioner, Amal, aged 20, is accused of offences under Sections 332(c) and 78(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and Sections 12 and 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, alleging that he followed, assaulted a victim, trespassed into her house, and recorded footage with a mobile phone. The prosecution contends the acts are serious; the applicant has a potential for custodial interrogation, and the offence carries substantial punishment. The respondent opposes bail, arguing the gravity and potential for witness interference. The court acknowledges the gravity but notes that the maximum sentence is below seven years and that oral evidence can suffice. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of U.P., Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the court concludes bail can be granted under stringent conditions. It orders the petitioner to appear before the IO within two weeks, and if arrested thereafter, to be released on bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, among other conditions, while preserving the right to cancel bail for violations. The decision aligns with the principle that personal liberty warrants cautious, conditional release in appropriate circumstances.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS, concerning Crime No.118/2024 of the Kannanalloor Police Station. The petitioner, Shemeer Aboobacker, is accused of offences under Sections 110, 118(2) read with Section 3(5) BNSS, 2023, arising from an incident on 21.01.2025 where an alleged attempt was made to strike the defacto complainant and his friends with a silver car, resulting in a fracture to one of the victims. The petitioner contends that the ingredients of Section 118(2) and Section 110 BNSS do not attract, arguing that any fracture occurred without an overt act by him. The Public Prosecutor conceded that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner as per the report from the investigating officer, but opposed bail on the merits of the case. The High Court, after considering the arguments and noting the lack of antecedents, held that the allegations warrant investigation and that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. Relying on Supreme Court principles, including the bail rule as a general norm and the primacy of personal liberty, the court allowed bail with conditions: appearance for interrogation within two weeks, bond and sureties, travel restrictions, no leaving the country, no further offences, and compliance with investigations, with power to cancel bail for violation. The order references landmark bail jurisprudence to justify the decision.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition by Vijuline Mathew challenging concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque dated 22.06.2005 for Rs.12,23,000 in discharge of a debt claimed by the first respondent. The first respondent lodged a complaint before the Magistrate, leading to trial wherein PW1 testified and Exts P1–P15 were marked; the petitioner did not lead oral evidence but Exts D1 and D2 were produced. The Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court plus payable compensation of Rs.12,23,000 with a default six-month rigorous imprisonment for non-payment. The Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, confirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal (Crl.A.No.343/2008). In the revision before the High Court, the petitioner questioned the prosecution’s financial capacity to advance the claimed amount and raised issues about ink changes in Ext.P1, alleged cheque leaf misuse, and lack of independent witnesses. The High Court, after reappraisal, found no manifest illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings and upheld the lower courts’ judgments. It relied on Supreme Court principles that revisional power is not an appeal, and interference is warranted only for perverse, untenable, or grossly unreasonable findings. The revision was dismissed, and sentences were ordered to be enforced.
ANANTHU, the first accused in Crime No. 22/2025 of Patanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The offences alleged include sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 74, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. Arrested on 21.02.2025, he faces allegations arising from a festival at Punnackal Parambu Bhajana Madom temple where a devotional program involved a mic operation; the case description suggests assault on the husband of the defacto complainant and on others, during the after-hours of a musical program. The petitioner contends there are no criminal antecedents, as per the police report; he is willing to comply with stringent conditions and to cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail petition but concedes lack of antecedents; the prosecution maintains seriousness of the offences. The High Court reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India; and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. On considering the facts and the law, the court holds that bail can be granted with conditions, and accordingly directs release on bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, attendance before IO, non-application of pressure or inducement, travel restrictions, and a power of cancellation for violations. The matter is disposed with bail granted.
This is a common order by the Kerala High Court, single judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan, disposing two connected bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arising from Crime Nos. 25/2025 and 26/2025 in the Chittoor Excise Range, Palakkad. The petitioners in 4156/2025 are Vellingiri K (salesman) and Ranganathan (convener of Toddy Shop No. 33, Group VI). The petitioners in 4162/2025 are Kumaran R (licensee of Toddy Shop No.32, Group VII) and Sumesh M (employee). The excise officials had collected samples of toddy showing Benadryl; charges under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act were framed. The petitions argue custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that the prosecution can prove the case with oral and documentary evidence; they express willingness to comply with reasonable conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes, citing seriousness of offences. The court reiterates bail as the rule and jail as the exception, cites Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to justify its approach, and ultimately allows bail with stringent conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest follows, release on bail on bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; no leaving India; no further offences; and bail cancellation if conditions are violated. The order treats personal liberty as fundamental and relies on established bail jurisprudence.
This MACA arises from an MACT award for the death of Manoj N.K. in 2015. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,79,000 with 9% interest from the date of petition. The appellants, who are the wife and family of the deceased, challenge the quantum, arguing that the deceased was employed in the UAE and earned Rs. 41,000 per month; the tribunal had accepted the evidence but later refused to rely on the UAE salary certificate. The petition included Ext. A13, an attested salary certificate; at the appellate stage, the court allowed I.A. No.1191/2018 and received Ext. A13 in evidence, holding that Section 166 petitions do not require strict standard of proof and that the evidence can be considered on a balance of probabilities. The court found the deceased's actual income at Rs. 30,000 per month, and after applying 25% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, the monthly figure becomes Rs. 37,500. With a multiplier of 14 (Sarla Verma) and four dependents, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs. 63,00,000, with adjustments for personal expenses leaving Rs. 47,25,000. The tribunal’s award of Rs. 8,19,000 under this head is increased by Rs. 39,06,000. The overall enhanced compensation now stands with interest at 7% and is to be deposited within three months. The appeal is allowed.
WP(C).No.11964 OF 2015(S) Public Interest Litigation filed by Mulavukad Residents All Party United Association seeks inpatient treatment facilities at Mulavukad Government Hospital, including appointment of adequate doctors and para-medical staff, to enable inpatient care. The petition prays for mandamus or other appropriate relief to direct the respondents to appoint required staff, facilitate inpatient treatment, file a detailed report on steps taken, and pass orders on Ext.P3. The matter concerns a local unregistered body, raising a key issue of maintainability of PILs filed by associations without legal personality. The court surveys a long line of decisions across Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court holding that unregistered associations generally lack standing to sue under Article 226, unless they have recognized legal personality or statutory backing. It cites precedents from Madras, Calcutta, Rajasthan, Gauhati and others, including The North Arcot Pawn Brokers' Association, Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Porathissery Panchayat Tax Payees Association, Sand Carrier's Owner's Union, Jalore District Teachers' Association, Parents Teachers Association, Joint Action Committee of PWD Manipur, Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association, Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association, as well as foundational discussions on locus standi and PIL. Ultimately, the Division Bench holds the PIL as not maintainable due to the petitioner’s unregistered status, but directs the government to ensure adequate doctors and para-medical staff at Mulavukad Hospital, disposing of the petition with a public-interest safeguard.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1522 OF 2009 This Punjab/kerala High Court criminal revision arises from a conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, upheld by a Fast Track Court and challenged by the accused, Liju. The prosecution case, as per the record, is that on 26 August 2000, PW1 and the excise party found the accused with a five-litre can containing two litres of illicit arrack, seized it, and prepared Ext. P4 seizure mahazar, Ext. P5 crime, and later a forwarding note Ext P7; the contraband and records were produced before the excise range office; the accused was tried, convicted, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. The crux of the revision is whether the sample deposited with the chemical examiner was the very sample seized at the spot. The court reviews Ext P4, Ext P7, and Ext P8, and notes significant deficiencies: absence of specimen seal impressions in the seizure mahazar and forwarding note, blank space for the Excise Guard, and unexplained delay in sending the sample to the laboratory. Relying on several previous Kerala cases emphasizing link evidence and tamper-proof despatch (Moothedath Sivadasan, Bhaskaran, Sasidharan, Madhavan, Kumaran, Gireesh@Manoj), the court concludes that the chain of custody cannot be established. Consequently, the convictions are set aside, the accused is acquitted, bail cancelled, and he is to be set at liberty.
Tr.Appeal (C) No.2 of 2023 This intra-court transfer appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 arises from a dispute concerning guardianship and custody of minor children. The respondent (Khadeeja Abdul Karim) filed O.P.(G&W) No.2124 of 2022 seeking guardianship and custody, which was initially handled by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram but later transferred to the Family Court at North Paravur. The appellant (Jameenudheen) challenged this transfer, arguing that the children ordinarily reside with him in Thiruvananthapuram and that the original petition’s jurisdiction lies there under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The Single Judge allowed the transfer, noting that: (i) the respondent and two minor children reside in Ernakulam, (ii) other related cases are pending in Ernakulam and were transferred to North Paravur, enabling consolidation, and (iii) Thiruvananthapuram as a location is remote for the respondent. The court relied on several prior Kerala High Court judgments to justify the transfer (Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay; Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha) and a Full Bench decision on Section 24 CPC transfers (Balan v. Sivagiri...). The two-judge bench ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the transfer, and directed safekeeping of a Family Counsellor’s report.
Hashim, the first accused, is challenging a conviction for alleged conspiracy to cheat and forge in the Kerala PSC examination process. The trial court convicted Hashim and the co-accused under sections 120B, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 IPC after examining 16 witnesses and marking Exts. P1–P16. On appeal, the Sessions Court held that Ext. P2 (the original answer script)was not properly proved, particularly because Ext. P15 (the forensic document) was not proven by examining its author under Cr.P.C., and it remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the prosecution to prove Ext. P15 in accordance with law. The revision petitioner contends that remand to fill lacunae is impermissible in revision petitions and relies on Supreme Court authorities Ajay Kumar Ghoshal v. State of Bihar, Mohd. Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) and P. Ramesh v. State to stress that retrial is exceptional and not an instrument to shore up a case. The prosecution argues Ext. P15 is a relevant piece of evidence and should be proved. The High Court notes that Ext. P2’s original script is lost and reconstruction is impossible, and that Ext. P15 cannot be proved without examining its author. Nevertheless, it acquits Hashim, holding that the evidence does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and sets aside both the trial and appellate judgments, allowing the revision petition.
This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh on 20 May 2024, deals with challenges to ICDS notifications and the retrospective amendment of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The lead petition (WP(C) No. 30318/2019) by P.A. Jose and allied writ petitions challenge ICDS II, Clause 16 (First-In-First-Out or Weighted Average method for inventory valuation) and the retrospective substitution of Section 145A via Finance Act 2018, arguing these measures violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution and undermine established accounting practices (notably LIFO). The petitioners assert that the Revenue’s approach imposes a discriminatory framework, overrides settled judicial precedents, and forces a valuation method inconsistent with the taxpayer’s historical practices, thereby producing artificial gains. The court reviews the Delhi High Court’s Chamber of Tax Consultants decision and traces the legislative response: the 145A substitution retrospectively legitimizes ICDS, but the Kerala bench ultimately takes a guarded stance. It holds that the 2017-18 assessment year cannot forcibly impose FIFO on opening stock if it would create two inconsistent valuations within the same year. The result is a partial allowance: the impugned notices are quashed and the assessing authorities are directed to accept either LIFO for both opening and closing stock or FIFO/weighted average for both, thereby ensuring uniformity for 2017-18 within the chosen method.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 3680 OF 2025; 3713 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail order deals with two connected bail applications filed by K. N. Anand Kumar, a 70-year-old respondent, challenging the arrest and seeking bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The core issue is whether a seriously ill undertrial can be released on bail under the first proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS, especially when the accused is in custody and there are serious allegations of a financial scam involving CSR funds and NGO-driven schemes. The court notes that sickness alone does not entitle an undertrial to automatic bail and that jail authorities have medical facilities to treat inmates, with a medical board and jail doctors to decide treatment. The petitioner contends his illness (a 90% blockage) justifies bail under the first proviso; he is also alleged to be the founder/manager of a trust implicated in a large-scale fraud through a scheme that offered subsidized goods (two-wheelers, sewing machines, laptops) at half price, allegedly defrauding thousands of beneficiaries. The prosecution contends the petitioner participated in promotional events, had supervisory roles, and that the scheme involved tens of crores of rupees; custodial interrogation is necessary in several connected cases. The court ultimately holds that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, directs thorough investigation, and dismisses the bail applications. It relies on circulars, prison medical guidelines, and jurisdictions recognizing the limits of illness-based bail.
The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the Travancore Devaswom Board's handling of Vellayani Devi Temple activities for the Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam 1200ME (2025). The petition seeks (i) a mandamus to consider Ext.P3 dated 18.02.2025; (ii) a mandamus to permit two petitioners to accompany Thanga Thirumudi on Kalam Kaval on 31.03.2025 during Aswathy Pongala; and (iii) a mandamus to ensure the rights of the Sthanees protected by Civil Court judgments Exts.P1 and P2. On 20.03.2025, the matter was admitted; the Board was served; additional respondent impleaded by order. The Court reviews the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, especially sections 3, 15A, 31 and 31A, and the Temple Advisory Committee Rules under Section 31A. It notes that the Rules prescribe membership and the objective to formulate development schemes, with the Board approving such committees. Citing Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee and Rajalakshmi decisions, the Court emphasizes that the Board must ensure regular rites and provide facilities to devotees, and that the Temple Advisory Committee assists in smooth functioning. However, it holds that the petition does not establish a hereditary or legal right to accompany Thanga Thirumudi, and the writ petition cannot command such participation. Nonetheless, the Court directs that festival activities in 1200ME be supervised by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner.
This High Court of Kerala judgment addresses the applicability of the lis pendens doctrine under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to transferrals of interest that occur during an interregnum after the disposal or during the pendency of litigation but before final resolution. The petitioner, Sukumaran, purchased 1 acre 3 cents in 1980 from Acharu, claiming to be dealing with property whose title trace goes back to a 1957 document and a previous second appeal that was dismissed as not available for partition. After the second appeal (S.A.No.278/1974) the Apex Court reversed a Division Bench judgment, leading to questions about the binding effect of such Supreme Court reversal on successive transferees if the transfer occurred during the interregnum or after dismissal but before exhaustively pursuing remedies. The court clarifies the essential principle of lis pendens: the pendency of a suit or appeal, including deemed pendency during limitation periods, can bind transfers of immovable property; however, if there is a discontinuance or lapse after the limitation period without active continuation of litigation, transfers in that interregnum may fall outside Section 52. The court sets aside the impugned order, remands the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal, and partially allows the O.P.(C). The decision emphasizes that a transferee operating in the interregnum may need to be impleaded to bind them, unless the law and the facts clearly show continued pendency.”
Veerankutty T. M. challenged the revived coercive actions under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the Thrissur District Co‑operative Bank against properties mortgaged for loans. The petitioner alleged that fraud and forged documents by a third party induced him to sign papers, and that the loan proceeds were obtained through misrepresentation. He sought to restrain recovery actions and questioned Ext. P16 (an order directing possession under SARFAESI) and Ext. P15 (an application/relief sought in another writ). The petitions argued that, because fraud tainted the transaction, the coercive measures should be stayed pending resolution of disputes under Section 69 of the Co‑operative Societies Act, and that the matter should be reframed for ARC proceedings. The learned single judge dismissed WP(C) Nos. 24960/2020 and 3187/2022, citing the established SARFAESI remedy under Sections 13–17 and deeming Article 226 petitions as inappropriate for these issues, with authorities like Mathew K.C. and Phoenix ARC cited to caution against entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters. On 7 June 2023, a Division Bench upheld the dismissal of the writ appeals, holding that no interference with SARFAESI actions is warranted and that the petitioner may pursue relief in the proper forum. The decision reinforces the primacy of SARFAESI remedies over indiscriminate Article 226 challenges in such fraud-tinged mortgage recoveries.
Damodaran, the appellant, challenges a Kerala High Court Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 2214 of 2008) arising from a conviction under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act for possessing four litres of arrack on 17.06.1999. The trial court convicted him and imposed one year’s simple imprisonment and a Rs. 1 lakh fine. The appellant contends two principal infirmities: first, that arrest itself is doubtful since no arrest memo was prepared as mandated; second, that the prosecution failed to establish that the arrack seized at the place of occurrence reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, undermining the chain of custody and the link to the laboratory analysis. The High Court scrutinizes mandatory arrest procedures, the reliability of seizure and laboratory testing, and the delay in producing properties to the court, citing a series of precedents. It emphasizes the necessity of a tamperproof chain of custody, proper sealing, and contemporaneous arrest documentation, referencing Basu, Ramankutty, Sasidharan, Sathi, Ravi, Bhaskaran, Rajamma, Daulat Ram, and Vijay Pandey. The court finds the prosecution failed to prove a direct link between the seized contraband and the sample analyzed, and that the noncompliance with mandatory formalities renders the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the conviction is set aside and the appeal is allowed, resulting in acquittal and liberty for the accused, with deposits to be disbursed as law provides.
BAIL APPL. NO.4198 OF 2025 The Kerala High Court, in Bail Appl. No. 4198 of 2025, dealt with a bail petition under Section 483 BNSS filed by Ravi Panakkal and Sanku Panakkal, accused in Crime No. 210/2025 of Chavakkad Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The petitioners, in custody since 24.02.2025, contested indefinite detention and urged release on bail after imposition of stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation and ensure a fair trial. The prosecution alleged a scam under the banner of a scheme titled “Women on Wheels” run by the National NGO Corporation, wherein the accused purportedly promised a discounted scooter purchase at half price, collected Rs. 64,300, but failed to provide the vehicle or refund the money. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions – Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala – the court held that bail can be granted with conditions if the statutory criteria are met. The order imposes bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, restrictions on travel, and non-commission of similar offences, among other directions, solely for deciding this bail petition.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 3939 of 2025, deals with Ashik A, the second accused in Crime No. 201/2025 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The plea, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, challenges detention and seeks bail following allegations under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) sections 126(2), 115(2) and 109 r/w 3(5). The prosecution alleges that on 27 February 2025 near Immanuel College, the first-year student was restrained and assaulted by two accused, with injuries to the ear and head; the acts included punching, kicking and repeated threats. The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are accepted, the main overt act is by the 1st accused and that the 2nd accused has no criminal antecedents, is a student, and is prepared to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledges absence of antecedents in the report; the gravity of the offence and potential impact on the investigation are highlighted. The court relies on bail jurisprudence—bail is the rule and jail the exception—supported by Siddharth v. State (UP), Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, and Sushila Aggarwal to justify bail with conditions. Ultimately, the court grants bail to the 2nd accused with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, cooperation, no flight, and power to revoke on violation, while invoking Anzar Azeez’s principle for consistency in this jurisdiction.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 This Bail Application, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, concerns Naseeb Muhammed Rifay K.A. and Ajeena V.M, petitioners accused in Crime No. 113/2025 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023). The petitioners challenge the necessity of custodial detention, contending that even if all allegations are accepted, the offences are not attracted and they are willing to comply with stringent bail conditions. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail but concedes the absence of criminal antecedents and argues that the prosecution can prove its case through oral and documentary evidence. The court acknowledges that the allegations are serious but emphasises that custodial interrogation is not necessarily required at this stage; arrest, if at all, can be ordered after interrogation. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterates that bail is a rule and jail an exception, with the power to arrest needing justification. It cites Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez to underscore that grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail and that investigation may run concurrently with bail. Accordingly, the court grants bail with specific conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks, possible arrest after interrogation with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties; travel restrictions; prohibition on leaving India; no commission of similar offences; and authority for the IO to pursue necessary recoveries, with potential cancellation for violation.
OT Rev.4 of 2025 & OT Rev.5 of 2025 These OT Rev.4 and 5 of 2025 challenge the common order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6 November 2024 in TA(VAT) Nos. 33/2019 and 34/2019. M/s. Annoor Dental College, a charitable educational institution run by Annoor Educational Trust, was proceeded against under Section 67(1) KVAT Act for not obtaining registration despite surpassing turnover thresholds and for not remitting VAT on sales for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties, while the State challenged in the VAT Appellate Tribunal, which held that the college’s primary activities—education and health care—do not categorically exclude ancillary commercial activities, and that items such as sale of student kits, uniforms, canteen services and mess fees constitute business, thus requiring registration and assessment under Section 25(1). The Tribunal’s conclusion that “mess fees” could be linked to canteen sales led to a finding of liability for registration. The revision petitions argued the education activity cannot be treated as business and relied on Scholars Home Senior Secondary School v. State of Uttarakhand, but the Tribunal and High Court distinguished that decision on facts and statutory differences. After hearing, the High Court held no substantial question of law arises and dismissed the petitions, noting the Tribunal’s directive to verify canteen/mess fee classification and the inclusive definitions of “business” and “dealer.” The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
