Saraswathi, the petitioner, is the owner of about 1.09 acres in Survey No.1423/4-4 at Kuttichira, Chalakudy taluk. After obtaining a building permit, she constructed a residential-cum-commercial building on land originally assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. When she applied for occupation and a building number, the Kodassery Grama Panchayath rejected the request, stating that the land was assigned for agricultural purposes and that commercial activity is impermissible on such land. The petitioner moved a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue building numbers in accordance with the permit. The respondents counter that the government orders and circulars require possession certificates to reflect land nature and assigned purpose, and contend that commercial activity is not permitted on land assigned for agriculture or residential use. The court notes that the building permit was issued and construction completed, and that the respondents’ subsequent objection to numbering is arbitrary. While referencing Mahin and Another v Keezhmad Grama Panchayath and Other, Haridas R v State of Kerala and Others, and Raphy John v LRC, the court emphasizes examining the purpose of the assignment. Ultimately, the court sets aside Ext.P6, directing the 2nd respondent to assign a building number and, if construction conforms to the permit, to issue an Occupancy Certificate within one month.
This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in B.A.No.5002 of 2025 arising from Crime No.182/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station. The petitioner, Khim Bahadur B. K alias Rahul, aged 24, Nepali national, is accused of offences under BNS sections 137(1)(b), 144, 96, 74 and 64(1) and POCSO Act sections 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) and 8 r/w 7. The prosecution case alleges that the accused befriended the victim on Facebook, gained her trust by feigning love, took her to a lodge in Ernakulam, had sexual relations and impregnated her. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the parties were in a love relationship and have settled the matter; the victim has filed an affidavit stating no objection to bail and that they intend to marry. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing the Nepalese nationality and potential non-appearance for trial, though local Kerala sureties were offered. The Court acknowledges that the matter is settled but emphasizes that bail is a rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement and other authorities, including Jalaluddin Khan and Manish Sisodia, to support grant of bail under stringent conditions. The order ultimately allows bail with conditions: Rs.2,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties; petitioner to appear before the IO; no leaving India; no commission of similar offences; observations to be limited to bail decision; Anzar Azeez principle applied. If violated, bail can be canceled. The judge, P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J., notes the standard legal framework and grants bail accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5194 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Gokul, the 5th accused in Crime No. 166/2025 of Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha. The prosecution alleges a 2025 festival-related assault during the Bullock reception (Kettukala Ezhunallippu), where the accused allegedly assembled with dangerous weapons and assaulted the De facto complainant and others following an enmity over the handover of the Chendamelam. The offences cited include sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118, 118(1), 118(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are true, his overt act is limited to kicking the injured person and that there are no criminal antecedents; he has been in custody since 01.04.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, though acknowledging no prior antecedents for the petitioner, and emphasized the gravity of the alleged offences. The High Court acknowledges the seriousness but notes the 5th accused’s overt act is comparatively lesser than others and grants bail with stringent conditions. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities, the court holds bail is the rule where conditions are met and imposes bonds, appearance obligations, travel restrictions, and non-inducement/non-contact requirements, with a caveat that non-compliance can cancel bail. The order emphasizes balancing fair trial with public order and cites relevant precedents on bail doctrine.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5102 OF 2025 This is a bail petition filed by Suman Roy under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking bail in Crime No.243/2025 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding possession of 6.990 kg of ganja (an intermediate quantity). The petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, has been in custody since 22.02.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the risk of non-appearance given the petitioner’s origin outside Kerala, though conceding lack of criminal antecedents in the report. Counsel for the petitioner submitted willingness to abide by strict conditions and offered local Palakkad sureties. The Court noted the seriousness of the charge but emphasized that the quantity seized qualifies only as an intermediate quantity, and that no antecedent is alleged; it accepted the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing well-known authorities. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court observed that once a case for bail is made out, courts should not hesitate to grant it. The order imposes stringent conditions: bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two solvent local sureties from Palakkad, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, and no commission of similar offences. The Court also notes that the observations are limited to the bail petition and bail can be canceled on violation, citing Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The petition is allowed with conditions.
This is a bail application under BNSS 2023 filed by Suhail, accused in Crime No.403/2025 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under NDPS Act, sections 22(b) and 29 for possession of 1.42 grams of MDMA. The High Court notes custody since 27.02.2025 and recognises the seriousness of the allegations but classifies the seized contraband as an intermediate quantity, thus making Section 37 NDPS not attracted. While the Public Prosecutor opposed bail, he reports no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, the Court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail an exception, and that a proper balance must be struck to ensure a fair trial. It cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasize that the court should not deny bail in deserving cases, subject to statutory conditions. It also references Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable guiding precedent. In light of the facts, detention period, and lack of antecedents, the Court grants bail under stringent conditions, with directions for bond, two sureties, appearance before IO, travel restrictions, and a caution that bail can be canceled if conditions are violated. The order underscores that the principle remains that bail is the rule, with possible future cancellations for non-compliance.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5260 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) filed by Kiran, accused in Crime No. 309/2025 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges that on 11 March 2025, around 12:40 AM during the Kattoor SNDP Temple Festival, the petitioner, along with other accused, attacked the defacto complainant with a granite rubble, causing minor injuries; a final report has been filed. The petitioner argues readiness to comply with stringent conditions and asserts that bail is a rule and jail an exception, especially where the final report is filed and the accused has been in custody since 17 March 2025. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing criminal antecedents but concedes that the final report is filed. The court reiterates the long-standing principle that bail is the norm and not the exception, citing leading judgments to emphasize fair trial and the presumption in favour of bail. After evaluating the facts—the petitioner’s custody period and the completed investigation—the court finds that bail with stringent conditions is warranted. Directions include a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperation with investigation, prohibition on leaving the country without permission, and a prohibition on committing similar offences, with the court retaining jurisdiction to cancel bail on violation. The order emphasizes that these observations are for deciding this bail application.
This is a cross-objection preferred by the claimant Santosh (cross-objector) against the MACA 1456/2021 award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in OP(MV) No.371/2016 arising from a July 3, 2013 accident in which Santosh, a scooter rider claiming to be a fisherman, was injured when a KSRTC bus collided with his vehicle. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded compensation across various heads with a total amount (as recorded in the award). The Insurance Company challenged the award in MACA 1456/2021; the High Court dismissed that appeal on 06.03.2025 but did not adjudicate the cross-objection at that time. The cross-objection was later entertained. The court found that the cross-objector’s claimed earnings of Rs.20,000 per month were not proven and fixed a notional income of Rs.9,000 per mensum, applying the Ramachandrappa principle for future prospects (40% to yield Rs.12,600 per month). Relying on Kajal, it directed substantial enhancements including future attendant charges (16,20,000), permanent disability (22,68,000), pain and suffering (3,00,000), loss of earnings (90,000) and loss of amenities (2,00,000). The enhanced total is Rs.22,62,000, with interest at 8% p.a. and costs, deposit within two months, and deduction of deficit court fees from the deposit. The insurer’s appeal remains dismissed, and the cross-objection is allowed.
The petitioner, Thomas K. Mathew, claims possession of 1.652 hectares in Re-Survey No.312/1, Edakkunnam, and seeks to quash Ext.P5 and direct the Parathode Grama Panchayat to number the building constructed under Ext.P2 Building Permit. He had applied for a Building Permit and, after Site Approval (Ext.P2), constructed a residential-cum-commercial building in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. When he sought numbering and an Occupancy Certificate, the Panchayat referred the matter to the Village Officer, who, per Ext.P6, reported that the land lies in an exempted category under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, the Secretary issued Ext.P5, closing the file. The petitioner argues that once a Building Permit is issued, the Panchayat cannot later deny Occupancy Certification for any reason. He contends that the 4th respondent had no authority to deny numbering due to plantation land status under the KLR Act, and that Ext.P5 is unsustainable since conversion under KLR Act does not prohibit construction; any excess land due to conversion would be dealt with under Sections 85, 87, and 85(9), with potential surrender of land. Respondents counter that ROR is required for numbering and that exempt plantation land cannot permit non-plantation construction. The Court relies on Elias T.V. v. Sub Collector and Mathew K. Jacob to affirm that there is no statutory bar on land use and that conversion/ceiling procedures may affect exemptions. The petition is allowed; respondents are directed to consider numbering the building within one month if otherwise eligible, notwithstanding exempted status.
OP(C) No. 2047 of 2021, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenges the common order in I.A. 588/2019 in O.S. 369/2010, and CMA 20/2020, concerning a suit in which the first respondent seeks a declaration that conveyance deeds are null and void and for injunction. The petitioner, the second defendant, contends that he was abroad in Saudi Arabia and thus could not attend the trial, leading to an ex parte decree (Exhibit P2). He filed Exhibit P3 to set aside that ex parte decree, but the Trial Court dismissed it (Exhibit P4). The petitioner then filed CMA No. 20/2020 before the District Court, Kozhikode, with Exhibit P6 seeking to condone a 205-day delay in filing the CMA. The District Court, and the subsequent appellate court (Exhibits P8 and P9), declined to condone the delay, thereby upholding the ex parte decree. The petitioner relies on Supreme Court precedents such as G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora to argue that ‘sufficient cause’ under Order IX CPC must be liberally construed to do complete justice. The High Court agrees the reasons are compelling but finds fault with the hyper-technical stance of the lower courts. It sets aside P4, P8 and P9 on condition of depositing Rs 10,000 as costs within two weeks, restores O.S. 369/2010, and directs expeditious disposal by 31.03.2023; failure to comply would sustain the earlier orders. The judgment reflects a liberal, justice-oriented approach under Article 227.
WP(C) No. 28461 of 2018 (and connected cases) The judgment deals with a batch of writ petitions filed by KSRTC empanelled drivers, conductors and mechanics asserting their regularisation under prior bipartite settlements and government orders. The petitions trace to the 2008 bipartite settlement and the Government orders that conditioned regularisation on ten years of service and, later, on a minimum of 120 days of duty per year. KSRTC had terminated many employees following decisions and Supreme Court orders, while individual petitioners had previously obtained regularisation or victories in this Court. The Court reviews Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) 2 KLT 258 and the Supreme Court’s Civil Appeals Nos. 4435–4438/2017, which upheld the government’s power to impose additional regularisation conditions, and contrasts them with the Division Bench decision in WA 354/2014. The Court then holds that the Supreme Court’s declarations bind all under Article 141 and that the KSRTC must provide hearing, examine service records, and determine eligibility for regularisation (ten years and 120 days up to 21.12.2011). If eligible, regularisation must be ordered within three months; if not, termination may follow, with pensionary rights for those entitled. The decision binds all connected petitions, directing a remedial process and safeguarding due benefits.
BA Nos.5042 and 5052 of 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail judgment rendered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan on 10 April 2025 under BNSS, 2023. Bail Applications Nos. 5042 and 5052 of 2025 concern the same petitioner, Thomas John, an accused in Crime No. 67/2025 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station (Kottayam) and Crime No. 130/2025 of Kodakara Police Station (Thrissur). The offences alleged include sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC, based on a scheme allegedly cheating the complainants by offering visa and job opportunities in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia, with actionable funds not returned. The submissions from the petitioner’s counsel (Gerry Dougles S. and Sonam Gerry) emphasized readiness to comply with conditions, arrest dates, and the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting multiple prior accusations against the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but reaffirmed the settled bail doctrine derived from Supreme Court and Kerala decisions that bail should ordinarily be granted and incarceration should be the exception, especially when a fair trial is possible. Citing 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 allowed the petitions with stringent conditions, including bonds, appearance, no travel, and non-commission of similar offences, while noting that non-compliance could revoke bail.
This bail petition concerns Eldho Eliyas, accused in Crime No. 180/2025 of Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur, charged under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner has been in custody since 03 March 2025. The prosecution case alleges possession of a country-made single-barrel gun and 13 cartridges found in the bedroom bed. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused is ready to abide by stringent conditions, that he has no criminal antecedents as per the report, and that the maximum punishment under the charged offences remains below seven years; accordingly, bail should be granted to ensure a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail while acknowledging lack of antecedents in the report. The court relied on established bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as crystallized in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and reiterated in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, stressing that courts must consider bail on merits. Considering the facts, conditions and statutory provisions, the court grants bail with directions: bond for Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount; the accused shall appear before the IO as required; shall not leave India without permission; shall not commit a similar offence; and the observations are for this bail application, citing Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. Bail is conditional and may be cancelled for violation.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5146 OF 2025 The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 5146 of 2025, deals with the pre-trial bail of Abu, the first accused in Crime No.157/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for alleged possession of 65 grams of MDMA. The petitioner has been in custody since 27 January 2024, and the State opposes bail given the commercial quantity involved. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Supreme Court precedents, including Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal; Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal, and a line of authorities, contending that prolonged incarceration can erode Article 21 rights and may overcome NDPS restrictions under Section 37(1)(b). The Public Prosecutor counters that the quantity and seriousness of the offence merit continued detention. The court reviews these authorities, noting that in Ankur Chaudhary, Hasanujjaman, Nitish Adhikary, and related rulings, prolonged detention can justify bail when trial delays occur, and emphasizes Article 21’s primacy over Section 37(1)(b) when prosecution delays are decisive. It also considers the prosecution’s delays in producing witnesses and a Section 311 application, ultimately disposing of the petition with directions that a fresh bail application be filed within four weeks and decided within two weeks, citing these precedents. The order signals that the petitioner may be released on bail upon filing a new application in light of the cited principles.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5040 OF 2025 Haroon Nazar, the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No. 344/2024 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 22(b) and 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act, 1985. This Bail Application (Section 483 BNSS) arises after the petitioner surrendered in pursuance of a prior anticipatory bail directive and has been in custody since 12 March 2025. The prosecution states that 3.27 g of MDMA and 1.76 g of ganja were seized near the Toll Plaza, Kumbalam, and the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the case. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the seized quantity constitutes an intermediate quantity under the NDPS regime and that no criminal antecedents are shown in the IO report; the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions and to cooperate in the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded lack of antecedents. The High Court noted the seriousness of the allegations but held that the intermediate quantity and absence of antecedents, together with custody since 12 March 2025, justify release on bail with stringent conditions. The court reaffirmed the long-standing bail principle—“bail is the rule and jail is the exception”—and indicated it may impose statutory conditions and cancel bail if future violations occur, relying on Anzar Azeez and contemporary jurisprudence.
RCRev Nos. 25 & 26 of 2021 The two rent-control revision petitions (RCRev 25/2021 and RCRev 26/2021) are heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The tenants challenge a common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the Rent Control Court’s dismissal of eviction petitions filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bonafide need for his dependant son to start a supermarket in petition schedule premises, while tenants claimed lack of bonafide need and argued the landlord had vacant shop rooms and that the tenants were dependent on the petition shops’ income. The trial court held no bonafide need and noted discrepancies in pleadings and evidence, including a mention in an affidavit that the landlord and son would run the business together. The appellate authority reversed, finding that the son’s abroad status during litigation did not defeat bonafide need, that there was no evidence of other suitable shop premises in landlord’s possession, and that provisos to Section 11(3) were not satisfied by the tenants. The High Court, while reaffirming that the appellate order is not perverse, granted nine months to vacate with conditions, dismissing the revisions.
Volga K. and Sarath Maria S.B., petitioners in a review, challenge the High Court of Kerala’s judgment in WA 455 of 2022. The petitioners contend that the 50% reservation pattern for state merit seats must be interpreted to include the 5% seats earmarked for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) within the EWS, OBC, and SCST categories. They argue that PWD and scheduled-reservation (SR) categories should be accommodated horizontally against seats reserved for their respective categories rather than across General seats, to avoid reducing open General seats and thereby inflating the total reserved pool beyond 50%. They further contend that any reservation beyond mandatory or social reservation is horizontal; if horizontal reservations for PWD are not applied, vertical reservation would breach constitutional limits, and horizontal adjustment by deleting lower-rank officers from the affected category would suffice. The petitioner concedes that the grounds in the review petition are largely similar to those in the writ appeal and that writ appeal grounds were addressed by this Court. The Court then surveys leading Supreme Court decisions on review, including Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., Parsion Devi, Lily Thomas, Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics, and Kamlesh Verma, to emphasize that review is not an appeal and is limited to patent errors. Ultimately, the Court holds that no error apparent on the face of the record is shown and dismisses the review petition, upholding the earlier WA 455/2022 decision.
This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment upholding a Single Judge’s dismissal of a writ petition that attacked the earmarking of government land for public use under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellant, son of the late Anthappan, challenged the decision by the Land Board and District Collector to allocate 1.60 acres from surrendered land for Police quarters, which he contends renders part of his land 65 cents landlocked and unusable. He sought certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the government’s power to reserve land for public purposes under Section 96(1A) and related provisions was misapplied, and that the one-acre cap for individual assignments could not be overridden for public purposes. The respondents argued that Section 96(1A) authorizes reservation of land for public purposes and that the reservation for police housing constitutes a valid public use, supported by Rule 32 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, and the statutory scheme differentiates reservation from assignment. The Single Judge found the government had the power to reserve land for public purposes under Section 96(1A) and that the appellant’s claim under Section 85(8) had attained finality per Exhibit P5 (CRP No.112 of 2011). The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding no jurisdictional or legal error, and affirmed the learned Single Judge’s decision, clarifying the distinction between assignment and reservation and upholding government powers to reserve land for public use.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P9, a non-reasoned rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as a Notary. The petitioner asserts that the decision was driven by a ministerial intervention, which would contravene the statutory framework and the authority competent to decide such appointments. The respondent State contends that the candidate pool for Notary appointment was large and the selection necessitated an elimination process; Ext.P9 lapsed in furnishing reasons, but the overall process was driven by a need to select from among many applicants. The Court emphasizes the importance of a transparent, reasoned decision in public appointments, noting that causeless rejection undermines the integrity of the process. While acknowledging the State’s justification that vacancies were limited, the Court observes that Ext.P9’s lack of stated reasons is problematic and may cast doubt on the process and candidates’ credentials. The Court, however, does not rest the matter on technicalities alone; it finds merit in the petitioner’s challenge and proceeds to allow the petition, setting aside Ext.P9. It directs the competent Authority under the applicable Act to reconsider the candidature in scrupulous compliance with procedural requirements, and to communicate the resultant order within three months. The Court also cites Abdul Kareem M. T.P. v. State of Kerala (2023 (1) KHC 666) as precedent that the issues have been noticed and answered there.
This is a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by P. S. Prasad, accused in Crime No. 54/2024 of Nileshwaram Excise Range, Kasaragod, for alleged offences under Sections 8(1) & 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of 1 litre of arrack. The petitioner surrendered on 25 March 2025 and has been in custody since then. The prosecution opposed bail, citing an antecedent and a separate case with similar allegations. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he is ready to comply with stringent conditions and that the well-settled principle—bail being the rule and jail the exception—should guide the court in granting bail to ensure a fair trial. The court relies on a lineage of high court and Supreme Court authorities including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260), to reaffirm that bail should be granted where possible with appropriate conditions. The court ultimately allows the bail application with conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer, an order not to leave India without permission, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and applicability of the Anzar Azeez principle. The order notes that violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
Raju Joseph, a registered dealer under the CGST and SGST Acts, challenges two GST orders (Exts. P5 and P5(a) dated 14.06.2023 and 16.06.2023) that denied his claim for input tax credit (ITC) for the financial year 2017-18 on the ground that the ITC claimed differed from the amounts in Form GSTR-2A. He contends that the discrepancy arose due to the supplier’s wrong GSTIN in Form GSTR-1 and that the clarifications in Circular No.183/15/2022-GST (27.12.2022) provide a procedure to reconcile ITC in such bona fide cases, including requirements for CA/CMA certificates or supplier certificates depending on the magnitude of the discrepancy. The petitioner relies on this court’s decision in Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala to argue that denial of ITC on the sole basis of 2A mismatch is unsustainable and that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. The court, after considering the circular and the materials, allows the writ petition, sets aside the impugned orders, and remits the matter to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the ITC claim for 2017-18 independent of Form GSTR-2A, with conditions including a 10% deposit and a date-certain for appearance.
