Robby V.J., the petitioner in WP(C) 29498 of 2021, approached the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Idukki, and the Tahsildar, Peermade Taluk, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying in Government puramboke land and to finalize Ext.P1 without applying the Government Order GO MS 28/2021/RD dated 28.01.2021. The application, dated 01.01.2018, was sent for enquiry and a report (Ext.P2) was generated on 01.02.2018. By Ext.P3, the Court directed measurement and reports from the Taluk Surveyor and Tahsildar and ordered the District Collector to process the request, with reports available by mid-2018. Subsequent reports (Exts.P4–P5) and a representation dated 08.06.2020 were filed, but no NOC was granted. In 2020–2021 the Government issued GO 28/2021, prescribing bidding for NOC. Petitioner contends the new guidelines cannot govern an application filed in 2018; respondents contend delays were caused by floods and that the GO applies to new or revised procedures. The Court ultimately held the application must be considered under the pre-GO procedure superseding GO 28/2021 and directed final orders within six weeks, without reference to the newer guidelines.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 784 OF 2013 Krishnan, the sole accused in SC No.216 of 2010, challenges his conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, affirmed by the trial court and upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod. The prosecution alleged possession of about three litres of illicit arrack in a 10‑litre can on 22.09.2009 at Periyaduka, Karaduka Village, Kasaragod, in contravention of Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, leading to a charge under Section 8(2). The trial court convicted him to four years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and a default sentence of six months. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence. In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner contends that serious irregularities taint the prosecution case: the seizure mahazar (Ext.P1) presented to him is not the true copy, as the original does not record the crime number or provision, and the specimen seal impression is absent; PW5 did not testify the seal’s nature; the Chemical Analysis Report reveals a long, unexplained delay before examination; Ext.P9 inventory was prepared by PW5, not by an authorised officer, contrary to extant rules; certification was by a non‑authorised officer; independent witnesses turned hostile, weakening corroboration. Citing Sathyan, Balakrishna Rai and other authorities, the court scrutinises the chain of custody, certifies that the State has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly allows the revision petition, acquitting the accused and cancelling bail. The outcome underscores the primacy of proper evidence handling and the benefit of doubt in criminal trials.
This Kerala High Court CRL.MC proceeding arises from S.T. No.1492/2015, where the complainant accused Priya Vinod and Govindankutty of defamatory remarks under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, based on an electronic Ext. P1 (an RTI-aided email) sent to police authorities. The trial court admitted Ext. P1 but held it needed certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to petitions under Cr.P.C. Sections 91 and 311 to compel production of the 65B certificate and to reopen evidence. The petitioners contended that allowing late production would prejudice their defense and that Section 65B certification could not be late. The trial court granted relief, directing the District Police Chief to furnish Ext. P1 with a 65B certificate. The High Court, while acknowledging that Section 65B (4) certification is ordinarily mandatory for admissibility of electronic records, held that such a certificate can be supplied later if necessary for proper disposal of the case, and declined to interfere with the trial court’s orders. The court emphasized that the production should be allowed without prejudice to the accused, directed that a copy be provided to the accused before admissibility, and dismissed the Crl.M.C, preserving the trial court’s approach and leaving final decision to be made uninfluenced by observations herein.
C.O.No.16/2018 & M.A.C.A.No.316 of 2017 This is a Kerala High Court judgment by Justice Devan Ramachandran delivered on 5 April 2023, arising from cross objections and an appeal in motor accident claims following the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) No.1308 of 2012. Harzhad Azeez, the cross objector/claimant, sustained grievous injuries when his motorcycle was struck by a car on 5 November 2010. He sought about Rs.38 lakh as compensation, with Rs.10 lakh claimed as reasonable; the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,54,774. The insurer, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the award, arguing the Tribunal erred by granting compensation under both Disability and Partial Loss of Earning Capacity, and by adopting an inadequate notional income. The cross objector sought enhancement of notional income and maintenance of disability plus loss of earnings under separate heads. The judge re-examined the notional income, considering the claimant’s qualifications and wrestling background, citing Ramachandrappa and Rajani to justify a higher basis, and held that 8,000 per month with 40% future prospects be used rather than 4,000 with 50%. The court upheld the 18-year-old multiplier (Sarla Verma) and the disability percentage of 38.6% (Ext.X1), but treated it as the basis for Disability only, deleting the separate Loss of Earning head. Consequently, the award was recalibrated to Rs.9,33,811 under Disability, with the Partial Loss of Earning Capacity removed, while other heads remained intact. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with interest at 8% and proportional costs. The decision endorses a robust assessment of income and future prospects in line with precedents such as Pranay Sethi and George.
This Kerala High Court appeal, MACA No. 1421 of 2014, arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, dated 6 December 2011 in OP(MV) No. 437/2007, concerning the death of Shajahan in a motor vehicle collision on 27 February 2007. Shajahan, who died as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was survived by legal heirs/dependents who claimed compensation for loss of dependency and other heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,68,850 (rounded to Rs. 10,69,000) with 7.5% interest from filing. The respondents contended the negligence lay with the motorcycle rider and that Shajahan’s income was not proved; the insurer acknowledged coverage. The petitioners argued that Shajahan was employed as a supervisor in a construction company with an asserted monthly salary of Rs. 10,000, supported by Ext. A1, but the Tribunal fixed only Rs. 5,000 per month due to lack of production of pay slips. The High Court examined PW1’s testimony and Ext. A1, noting inconsistencies in capacity and authority, and held that the deceased’s income could be higher than the Tribunal’s notional figure. Applying the Pranay Sethi framework for conventional heads, the Court increased the monthly income to Rs. 7,000, applied a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, and added 25% for future prospects, with a multiplier of 14 (age 41). It re-assessed loss of dependency and other heads (estate, funeral, loss of consortium, etc.), granting substantial additional compensation. The appeal was allowed; the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest, subject to an exemption for a 716-day delay in filing.
Leela and Sathyapalan, petitioners in WP(C) No. 1938 of 2023, challenge Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, which rejected their Form-5 applications to remove paddy land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They argue that the rejection rested on an Agricultural Officer’s report without a KSRSEC assessment or any site inspection by the first respondent, contrary to the data-bank framework and the judicial precedents requiring a reasoned, evidence-based reconsideration. The petition cites Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2017 (1) KHC 394), Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala (2020 (5) KHC 490), Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021 (1) KLT 433), Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222), Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023 (4) KLT 270), and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023 (5) KLT 432), urging that the data bank be determined as on 24.12.2008 and that the RDO independently assess whether exclusion would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, potentially using scientific data including KSRSEC. In consequence, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 are set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form-5 applications after obtaining the KSRSEC Report, pay the prescribed fee within two weeks, and pass a fresh order within two months after site inspection and considering Rule 4(4f). Petitioners may file argument notes. The matter is disposed of as directed.
The writ appeals challenge the Kerala High Court’s stance on whether institutions proposing to run a Doctor of Pharmacy? or Diploma in Pharmacy courses must obtain a consent of affiliation from the Examining Authority before approaching the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). The court recalls its own intra‑part judgments in WP(C) Nos.38755/2022 and 38790/2022, which held that the ‘consent of affiliation’ requirement is not mandatory and is rather directory or desirable, not a mandatory precondition that would lead to rejection in its absence. It also relies on the decision in Principal, DM Wims College of Pharmacy v. PCI (2022 (2) KLT 567) to support a non‑mandatory interpretation of the consent condition. The petitions were filed in the context of the 2022–23 admissions, with government reports issued about No Objection Certificates, and the appellants having submitted applications for 2023–24. The High Court notes that while the PCI cannot be directed to consider 2022–23 applications solely for lack of consent of affiliation, it should process the applications without insisting on such consent, within the time frame indicated by Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Others v. AICTE. The PCI is left to decide, in light of existing or fresh inspection reports, whether new inspections are required. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly with these directions.
This High Court of Kerala original petition challenges the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, final order in OA 718/2018, which held that the original applicant (respondent before the CAT) was entitled to Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) status for the Civil Service Examination (CSE) 2017, with placement in IPS/R1 cadre. The applicant, an OBC candidate, had a deceased father (State Government employee) and a mother employed in a State Public Sector Undertaking (KSFE). The core dispute concerns whether the applicant’s family qualifies for OBC-NCL status under the 1993 Instr. OM (Indra Sawhney framework) and the 2017 UPSC CSE Rules, given the timing of documentary submissions and the income criteria under the “Category II(C)” (PSUs) and “Category VI” (income/wealth). The Tribunal relied on the mutatis mutandis application of OBC criteria to PSUs and considered Annexure-A11 (OBC-NCL certificate, 27.09.2016) and Annexure-A2 (02.08.2017) along with Annexure-A4 (GO 31.05.2018) to determine eligibility, notwithstanding late documentary submissions. The Union challenged these conclusions, asserting strict adherence to closing dates and established procedures. The Court ultimately held that the applicant is entitled to OBC-NCL status for the 2017 notification and directed grant of status and placement, and dismissed the petition with directions to implement the Tribunal’s order within six weeks.
This is an Arbitration Request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed in the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) by M/S Vellapally Brothers (applicant) against Kirby Building Systems & Structures India Private Limited (respondent) for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The contract stems from a SunTec project in Thiruvananthapuram, where Annexure A1 purchase order provides that terms of tender (Annexures A2–A5) would govern disputes. The applicant contends that the disputes fall within Clause 29 of Annexure A3 and that the tender framework, backed by back-to-back agreements, embeds an arbitration agreement with a seat in Thiruvananthapuram, thereby giving this Court territorial and procedural jurisdiction. The respondent argues that no Kerala arbitration clause exists; instead, Annexure R1(C) conditions set Hyderabad as the arbitration venue and Telangana’s High Court has jurisdiction, supported by Section 42 and other authorities. The Court undertakes a detailed examination of Section 7(5) of the Act and the jurisprudence on incorporation by reference (MR Engineers, Inox Wind, Alimenta) and concludes that Clause 29 constitutes a valid arbitration agreement by incorporation. Consequently, AR is allowed; Justice A.M. Shaffique is appointed as sole arbitrator with seat at Ernakulam, and the parties are to appear as directed by the arbitrator. The order leaves all contentions open for the arbitrator to decide.
The petitioner, Soumya S., employed as Branch Head at Malluppatti Branch under the Salem Regional Office of the Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), was placed under suspension on 2 November 2019. A departmental enquiry followed, culminating in a charge-sheet and an inquiry report dated 25 June 2020 which found her guilty of the charges. Accordingly, she was terminated from service by order dated 5 October 2020. The petitioner challenged the termination by filing W.P.(C) 28162 of 2021, seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement and back wages. She argued that a portion of her cause of action arose within Kerala because she submitted her appeal from Kollam and the adverse orders were communicated to her at her residential address in Kollam; thus Article 226(2) of the Constitution and the CPC (Section 20(c)) confer jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court. The respondents contended that no part of the cause of action arose within Kerala and that jurisdiction cannot be founded merely on filing an appeal or service of adverse orders, citing Full Bench decisions in Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan and Dental Council of India v. Viswanath. The court examined Article 226(2) and the meaning of cause of action per Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, holding that service of orders does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. Applying these principles to the facts—misconduct occurred at Malluppatti; suspension and enquiry at Salem and Chennai; appeal filed from Kollam and rejected orders served there—the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the petitioner pursuing relief in a competent court.
Felix Moraes, the second plaintiff in O.S.641/2006 of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, filed OP(C) 538 of 2014 seeking declaration of title and possession of a scheduled property (3 Acres 57 cents in Block No.10, Sy.No.236/7-1 and 237/1 of Menamkulam Village) and to declare Land Assignment Certificate No.137/2001 (issued on Land Tribunal order SM No.9/1998) vitiated by fraud. The suit alleges the first respondent, the elder son of the first plaintiff, fraudulently obtained the Land Tribunal order and certificate against a father who had long died, and that only his father was made a party to SM No.9/1998. The petition also seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and obstructing peaceful possession. The petition is filed after the petitioner's mother (the first plaintiff) could not join due to age and health. The court’s focus in this petition is on the propriety of filing a replication (and other subsequent pleadings) under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and whether the rejection of leave to file replication on grounds of delay was warranted. The court ultimately allows the petition, setting aside Ext.P12, holding that replication with leave is permissible where trial has not commenced, relying on precedents upholding the broader concept of subsequent pleadings.
Cont.Case (C) No.191 of 2020 Cont.Case (C) No.191 of 2020, a contempt petition arising from WP(C) No.33245 of 2016, concerns willful non-compliance with Annexure A1’s judgment (dated 12.10.2018) in a challenge to pension-related directions under EPFO. The petitioners (12 named individuals among petitioners 4, 16, 33, 35, 36, 42, 43, 55, 56, 59, 60 & 66) had alleged that the 2018 order and related directives were not implemented by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), impacting their pension benefits under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the pension scheme. The Supreme Court’s 4 November 2022 judgment in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634) held the G.S.R. 609(E) notification (2014) legal and laid down directions, including read-down interpretations and extensions for options under paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court notes that entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in light of the 2022 judgment and, after hearing, closes the contempt case, reserving EPFO’s right to re-examine entitlement under law. Annexure A1 is reaffirmed as the certified judgment copy dated 12.10.2018.
TR.P(C) NO. 411 OF 2022, 414 OF 2022, 45 OF 2023 & TRP(CRL)43 OF 2022 This is a common High Court of Kerala order disposing of transfer petitions filed in matrimonial disputes between Jithin Justine and Ancy Cyril, along with related family petitions. The petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 411/2022, 414/2022, 45/2023 and Tr.P(Crl) 43/2022) seek to transfer proceedings from the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Ernakulam, while Tr.P(C) No. 45/2023 filed by Ancy Cyril seeks transfer in the opposite direction for OP(G&W) 190/2022. The judge, Justice C.S. Dias, notes that the disputes center on child custody, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and related reliefs, with the child ordinarily residing in Ernakulam and the wife employed there. Citing established legal principles from the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court decisions (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), the Court emphasizes convenience of the wife and child and contemporary CPC transfer jurisprudence under Section 24 of the CPC. After hearing both sides, the Court directs withdrawal and transfer of the Kollam cases to Ernakulam, dismisses one petition, and permits consolidation and joint trial, while forwarding records to Ernakulam and directing prompt posting of all cases with OP 190/2022 in Ernakulam.
Bail Appl. No. 733 of 2023 This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Sibi Joy, the first accused in Crime No. 41 of 2022 of Varappuzha Excise Range, for offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. On 19.10.2022, the Varappuzha Excise Inspector and party reportedly detected 25 grams of MDMA from the petitioner, with Sainul Abid arrayed as the second accused, alleged to have supplied the contraband for sale. The petitioner faced two earlier NDPS incidents (Crime No. 45/2019 and Crime No. 16/2022), and the prosecution pressed a claim of involvement in multiple NDPS cases. The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of extended custody since 19.10.2022, stage of investigation, and absence of concrete link to sale, asserting no imminent danger if released. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing continued involvement in NDPS activities and the gravity of the offences, including a potential “commercial quantity” scenario. The court explained Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring two conditions when the P.P. opposes bail in commercial-quantity cases: (i) there must be reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) he will not commit any offence while on bail. Relying on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari, the court clarified that “reasonable grounds” means more than prima facie grounds, and that this is not an acquittal. It cited multiple authorities and held that the twin criteria were not satisfied on the facts, and the bail application was dismissed.
Tha ha Mohammed Noorde en's MACA 1463 of 2012 appeals the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur award dated 16 January 2012 in O.P.(M.V) No.470/2010. The accident occurred on 28 January 2010 when the appellant’s motorcycle KL-55E/2659 was struck by a lorry KL-10S/7247 on the Trikkannapuram–Kuttipuram public road. The Tribunal held both the petitioner and the lorry driver negligent in equal measure (50:50) and directed the insurer to deposit 50% of the computed compensation of ₹1,13,324 with interest and costs. The appellant contends the award undervalues his disability, underestimates his monthly income (as a first-year B.Tech student), and erroneously attributes 50% negligence to him despite Ext. A2 scene mahazar and Ext. A5 charge-sheet evidence; he relies on Ramachandrappa to argue for a higher income basis. The respondents defend the Tribunal’s 50% contributory negligence finding and reliance on the driving license issue and policy, arguing legitimate insurer liability. The High Court reverses the negligence finding, holds the lorry driver liable, and recalculates compensation, maintaining 4% disability (despite a 7.59% certificate), increasing monthly income to ₹7,500 for disability assessment, and awarding substantial enhancements for by-stander expenses, transport, nourishment, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The appeal is allowed; the insurer and owner must pay within two months with interest at 7.5% from filing, while 68 days of delay are exempted.
WP(Crl) Nos.1189/2022; 1241/2022; 29/2023; 83/2023; Crl.M.C Nos.8820/2022; 9193/2022; 9255/2022; 176/2023; 271/2023; 323/2023 The Kerala High Court, presided by Justice V.G. Arun, consolidates several writ petitions and criminal/miscellaneous petitions under the NDPS Act, challenging the disposal and interim custody of seized vehicles and contraband. The court reviews the evolving jurisprudence on Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which prescribes disposal procedures, in light of CrPC provisions for interim custody (Sections 451 and 457) and related amendments. The judge cites Union of India v Mohanlal to emphasize that the introduction of Section 52A does not strip jurisdictional courts of their inherent power to grant interim custody of conveyances under CrPC, and to insist on safeguards like magistrate-supervised sampling and proper storage facilities. The decision traces developments from Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise (which held magistrates denuded of power under 451) to Sainaba v. State of Kerala (which reversed Shajahan and restored jurisdictional authority for interim custody under CrPC 457). The court reiterates that 52A governs disposal, not the broader custody powers, and directs petitioners to file under 457 CrPC for interim custody, with merits to be considered by Special Courts or Magistrates. In WP1189/2022 the court further directs release of a specific vehicle to its owner, while disposing of other petitions with instructions to hear owners before disposal and to pass reasoned orders. The judgment underscores natural justice, storage facilities, and the need to prevent indefinite detention of seized vehicles while balancing enforcement against rights of owners.
CRP Nos. 270/2020, 259/2020, 268/2020, 264/2020, 269/2020, 315/2020, 316/2020, 317/2020 and connected cases These connected Civil Revision Petitions challenge district-court orders enhancing compensation and the ten percent market value payable to landowners whose lands were affected by laying a gas pipeline under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The petitions, filed by the Chief Manager, GAS Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL), contend that the claimants’ petitions for compensation were premature since Section 10 of the Act contemplates initial determination of damages and market value by the Competent Authority, after which the claimants may seek relief in the District Court. The respondents, landowners such as Nalini, Komalavally, Balakrishnan, Beena, Rajeswari, Padmini Amma, Leela Amma, Devi Amma, and others, sought enhanced compensation for damages and market value. The Court cites Deputy Collector – Competent Authority, Gail (India) Ltd., Kochi v. Admad Kutty and Another (2020 (6) KHC 99) to illustrate the premature enhancement issue. It holds that the 10% market value and damages must be determined in a conjoint process rather than in isolation, and that preliminary enhancement by the District Court before fixation of the 10% value is unsustainable. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, with guidance that a claimant can approach the District Court after the Competent Authority fixes the 10% market value; pendency of revision petitions will be excluded from calculation of the time for approaching the District Court.
OP(KAT) No. 186/2021 before the Kerala High Court challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s interim order dated 29 July 2021 in OA 1246/2021. The PSC and its Secretary challenge the Tribunal’s Ext.P-3, which held that the minimum extension for ranked lists must be not less than three months and that Anxs. A-1 to A-14 could be extended beyond their expiry up to 28 September 2021, with advices to vacancies during that period to be drawn from the extended lists. The contesting respondents (the 14 applicants) support the Tribunal’s approach as protective of candidates’ interests, while the PSC defends that extension powers under the fifth proviso to Rule 13 are discretionary and not bound to a fixed minimum period. The petitioners rely on Subina v. State of Kerala and K. Thulaseedharan to argue that once the PSC exercises discretionary power, the extension must adhere to a minimum three-month period and cannot exceed one and a half years; the respondents rely on the discretionary, non‑duty nature of the power and on prevailing government policy to report vacancies. The High Court, after hearing, holds that the interim Tribunal order should be set aside for reasons of improper declaration of law, but it preserves a provisional extension up to 4 August 2021 as a temporary measure and subjects the remainder to final determination in the OA, while directing prompt vacancy reporting to PSC for timely advising and disposal of the OA.
This is a rent-control revision under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, Abdu Rahiman, challenges the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s reversal of a Rent Control Court eviction order under Sec. 11(8). The Rent Control Court had allowed eviction on the landlord’s need for additional accommodation to expand a business conducted in a small shop, while the Appellate Authority held that there was no bonafide need and found the landlord failed to prove the requirement of additional accommodation or the necessary “functional integrity” between the landlord’s and tenant’s portions. The tenant-respondents argue lack of bonafide, improper pleading, and absence of a showing that petition schedule rooms form part of a single building, challenging the maintainability of Sec. 11(8). The High Court clarifies the elements for a Sec. 11(8) petition: the landlord must occupy only a part of the building, the tenant must occupy the rest, and there must be functional integrity between portions; it rejects a rigid formula and emphasizes case-specific factual assessment, including pleadings and evidence. Relying on Marzook’s and Gangaram’s authorities, the Court allows remand to enable amendment of pleadings, additional objections, and further evidence, with a four-month time frame for disposal, to ensure a just resolution.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P8 notice dated 12.01.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala, Special Circle Palakkad, proposing a taxable turnover of Rs. 15,92,00,540 for GST for the financial year 2004-05. The background lies in an assessment completed for 2004-05 under Section 17(D) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act), which was challenged in W.P(C.) No.35601/2009. The High Court quashed that assessment and remanded for fresh disposal, directing completion within two months with adequate opportunity to the petitioner (see the Division Bench judgment cited in the decision). After remand, a fast track team was constituted (24.11.2021) to redo the assessment under Section 17(D). Notices were issued (02.12.2021) requiring production of records; the petitioner argued that records were unavailable after 12 years and that time-bar provisions should apply. The respondents contended that limitation does not apply on remand and that the matter could proceed in pursuance of the High Court’s directions. The court, after considering the authorities, held that the applicable limitation for original or revised assessments does not apply due to remand, but ultimately dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to inspect records and file a reply within three weeks, and directing consideration of any reply with a hearing if the petitioner appears. The order leaves the final assessment to be finalized in accordance with law.
