The petitioners, five Railway Protection Force personnel (Head Constables/Constables) in the Southern Railway, challenge the selection process for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) under Rule 72 of the RPF Rules 1987. They contend they were improperly evaluated for UR vacancies in the Southern Railway panel, arguing that two master-question-paper items (Q10 and Q70) contained errors and should have been omitted, with remaining questions prorated to maintain fairness. They argue that service-record scores were underutilized, and that rounding to the nearest whole mark (e.g., 47.5 up to 48) and the 60% threshold (out of 80 marks) were misapplied, resulting in their exclusion from the UR empanelment for ASI. Respondents contend the selection was conducted nationwide in accordance with RPF Rules, 1987, the Establishment Manual, 2019, and related guidelines; Q10 and Q70 were omitted due to typing/translation discrepancies, and marks were prorated to a maximum of 80 to ensure fairness. The court held that the Departmental Promotion Committee acted within statutory provisions, and that the methodology was not arbitrary; relying on jurisprudence emphasizing deference to expert bodies in academic matters, the petition was dismissed. The petition seeks inclusion in the UR panel and revision of the scoring, but the court refused relief.
The petition is an OP(C) challenging an earlier compromise decree in O.S. No. 1/2014 (Ext. P4). The respondent filed suit seeking recovery of Rs. 34,20,000 with interest; the parties executed a compromise on 09.04.2014, leading to a decree on 11.04.2014. Eight months later, the petitioner—then incapacitated and represented by his wife as his next friend—filed Ext. P5 on 16.12.2014 to set aside the compromise decree, alleging fraud and manipulation in the compromise petition. The respondent objected (Ext. P6). The petitioner’s counsel relinquished vakalath on the eve of the written statement; Ext. P5 was filed by his wife, who testified as PW1, and two counsel-witnesses testified (CW1, CW2) that the petitioner had signed the compromise after the terms were read to him. CW2 stated that the petitioner’s vakalat was signed in her presence and that he voluntarily executed the compromise petition. The court below, by Ext. P7, dismissed Ext. P5. The High Court held there was no illegality in Ext. P7 and that Ext. P5 was improperly filed by the petitioner’s wife without leave of court, observing the petitioner’s failure to testify and noting the best evidence lies with the counsel who signed the compromise, citing Jacob K.B. v. Najma Barneto. The petition is dismissed as lacking merit, reaffirming the sanctity of compromise decrees under Order XXIII CPC, 1908 and keeping intact the decree.
At issue is whether a claimant under Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules, Chapter XIV (A) can secure preferential appointment over an executive government order, GO(P) 10/10/G.Edn (2010). The 1st petitioner, Corporate Management of Sacred Transfiguration Pathanapuram, with minority status, promoted Jolly Alex to High School Assistant (Natural Science) in 2010, but the promotion required approval under GO 10/10 and a bond by the manager. The District Educational Officer rejected the approval, citing non-compliance with the bond and the order's conditions; the Deputy Director of Education and the Government later upheld that stance, and the petition was dismissed; ultimately, in light of 2011 orders and 2016 updates (GO 199/2011; GO 29/2016), the petition progressed. The petition argued that Rule 43 claimants have a superior right to appointment within the management’s jurisdiction, and that GO 10/10 is not applicable to a retirement vacancy in which the petitioner was promoted as a Rule 43 claimant. The court held that executive orders cannot override statutory rights; it recognized that Rule 43 claimants have preferential claims and that GO 10/10 does not bar promotion from 01.06.2010. It quashed Exts P3, P4, P8 and directed the 4th Respondent to approve the promotion w.e.f. 01.06.2010, with salary and pensionary benefits to be adjusted within specified timelines. The decision rests on established principles in Unni Narayanan, Moosakutty Pothuvalappan, and Madan Mohan Ghosh.
This is a criminal appeal under Cr. A. No. 1332 of 2011 before the Kerala High Court, challenging the judgment in CRA 204/2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, which reversed the trial court’s conviction for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and acquitted the accused. The complainant-turned-plaintiff, a money-lending company, alleged that the accused borrowed Rs.12,000 and issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.12,780 in discharge of that liability; the cheque bounced (Ext.P2) due to insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice (Ext.P4) was served but payment was not made. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment and to pay compensation under Cr.P.C. Section 357(3). The Appellate Court, relying on Exts.P9 and P10 (loan application and promissory note) being forged and finding inconsistencies in Ext.P1, acquitted the accused. The High Court, in this judgment, re-examines these conclusions, upholding the trial court’s conviction while modifying the sentence to a day’s imprisonment and a Rs.15,000 fine, and directing payment to the complainant with compensation. The decision clarifies the application of the reverse-onus presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act and reiterates that the presumption is rebuttable, with the standard of proof being preponderance of probabilities, while recognizing the evolving jurisprudence on the issue.
Tomy Pallippadan Pallippadath and seventeen other elected members of the Cherthala South Grama Panchayat challenged Ext.P6, an order demanding Rs. 11,111 each as liability for alleged irregularities in a 2001 urgent purchase of street-light materials. The Panchayat resolved on 29.09.2001 to procure tubes, bulbs, and related items without tendering, negotiating with Thrissur Wholesale Co‑operative Stores, and finalizing a purchase of Rs. 2,03,902. A 2006 audit flagged violations of store purchase laws, prompting the first respondent to issue Ext.P6 in 2011 demanding surcharge payments. The petition contends Ext.P6 was issued without authority, citing the procedural requirements of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, particularly Section 215 on audit of accounts, the 215(9) disallowance and surcharge procedure, and the remedy under Section 11 (District Court challenge) and the Local Fund Audit Act provisions. It argues that surcharge certificates and recovery actions can be taken only after due notice, opportunity to explain, objections, and proper enforcement channels; even if a loss is alleged, the remedy lies in the prescribed mechanisms, not arbitrary orders. The petitioners claim no loss occurred to the Panchayat, and the Ext.P6 violates due process. The court, after analyzing the statutory framework, held Ext.P6 unsustainable, set it aside, and stayed or voided corresponding revenue recovery actions, keeping the dispute for future proceedings consistent with statutory audit procedures.
This is a criminal appeal filed by the State under the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenging an acquittal recorded by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 54/2005. The accused, a Village Officer at Vanchiyoor Village, faced charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly demanding and accepting gratification to refrain from taking possession of the RAAZ Tourist Home, belonging to the father of PW1, during Oct 2001 to Jan 2003. The trial court acquitted after finding the prosecution’s evidence unconvincing beyond reasonable doubt. On admission, the State argued that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to prove demand and acceptance of bribes and that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the record. The defence maintained there was no credible evidence of a bribe, and PW1’s account was not reliable. The High Court scrutinized the alleged bribe incidents (23.12.2002, 24.12.2002, and 2.1.2003) and the accompanying trap (4.1.2003), noting implausibilities in PW1’s presence and PW2’s long wait, and the attachment proceedings that predated the trap. Relying on the principle that appellate interference with an acquittal requires compelling reasons, citing K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan, the Court held that two plausible views existed and that the trial court’s acquittal could not be deemed perverse. Consequently, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal stood.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges Exts.P12 and P13, two orders passed in IA Nos.628/2019 and 597/2015 in CMA No.5/2015 before the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla. The suits OS Nos.704/2014 and 705/2014, filed by respondents 1 and 3 for declaration, possession, and injunction, were resisted by the petitioner. The lower appellate court granted a common injunction in CMA Nos.5/2015 and 6/2015, prompting the respondents to move IA 597/2015 alleging violation of the injunction. The trial court later dismissed IA 597/2015, while IA 628/2019 sought to dismiss IA 597/2015; Exts.P12 and P13 challenged these orders. The petitioner contends that continuing with the prosecution of the injunction-violation application after disposal of the appeals undermines the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code and results in parallel proceedings in two fora, contrary to law. The Court recalls the principle laid down in Sudarsana Pillai R. and others vs. K. Thulaseedharan Nair and others (2017) that a deeming approach should be adopted so that the main proceedings are heard in the court where they are pending, and that appellate proceedings should not spawn independent prosecution. The Court sets aside Exts.P12 and P13, directs transfer of IA 597/2015 to the Trial Court re-numbered as in OS 705/2014, and orders expeditious disposal after hearing both sides. The judgment also emphasizes the exercise of superintendence under Article 227 to correct errors.
Ratheesh B. v. State of Kerala & Others, O.P.(KAT) No.86 of 2022, came before the Kerala High Court in a Division Bench, challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s OA No.2294/2019 order dated 16.12.2021. The matter concerns appointment rules for the post of Assistant Jailer Grade I in the Jail Subordinate Service under the Home Department, governed by the Kerala Jail Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules 2010. The rules prescribe recruitment by direct recruitment (50%) and promotion (50%), with a carved structure: 20% of direct recruitment reserved for executive staff, 20% for ministerial staff, and the remaining 60% for open quota. The petitioner contends that when PSC found no suitable ministerial candidates, the ministerial vacancies should have been allotted to executive staff to favor departmental in-service candidates, relying on Girish Kumar v. State of Kerala (1995 KHC 137). The Tribunal upheld the impugned distribution, interpreting Note 2 as allowing open quota allocation in light of internal quotas within the 50% direct recruitment pool. The petitioner urged reading the Rule’s conjunction “and” as “and/or” to reflect the object of the quotas, citing Peekay Re-Rolling Mills. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s construction, holding that the Special Rules allot quotas within the 50% direct recruitment framework, and the vacancies arise in the open quota only when both internal quotas are exhausted. The petition was dismissed.
W.A. Nos. 729/2016, 978/2016, 1199/2016 & 1284/2016 This batch of writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 729/2016, 978/2016, 1199/2016 & 1284/2016) from the Kerala High Court concerns challenges to a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) sale of secured assets under the RDDBFI Act, 1993. The appellants comprise banks (State Bank of Travancore in three appeals and V.G. Preman in one) seeking to set aside a sale conducted under the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as read with the RDDBFI Act, while the respondents include Bio Research Pharmaceuticals (and related individuals), the Tax Recovery Officers/Revenue machinery, and the DRT. The Appeals were finally heard on 25/10/2023 by a Division Bench (Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen) after impleading late respondents following notices that went unserved. The court examined whether writ jurisdiction was appropriate despite an equally efficacious appellate remedy, and whether procedural irregularities—particularly authorisation under Rule 13/Rule 19A, a lack of fresh proclamation after adjournments, and the effect of adjournments beyond one month—tainted the sale. The court reaffirmed the original April 12, 2023 judgment, overruling arguments to confine to the Appellate Tribunal and holding that the sale’s irregularities and the absence of proper notice can justify interference. The outcome declares that the writ petitions are to uphold the earlier setting aside of the sale, with all subsequent proceedings to be included in the judgment and with impleadment of legal heirs where necessary.
CRL.MC Nos. 238/2015; 202/2015; 206/2015; 237/2015; 239/2015; Crl.Rev.Pet Nos. 2104/2014; 2160/2014; Crl.M.C Nos. 7090/2014; 202/2015; 206/2015; 207/2015; 237/2015; 238/2015; 239/2015 This is a batch of connected criminal petitions before the Kerala High Court, led by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, challenging the investigation and final reports in Sessions Case No. 1130 of 2007 arising from Crime No. 116 of 2003 (Nemom Police) and related offences under the Abkari Act and IPC. The petitioners argue that the final report was filed by officers not competent under the Abkari Act, specifically by officers not notified Abkari Officers under Section 4 of the Abkari Act, per SRO 321/1996. The petitioners rely on decisions in Sujith v. State of Kerala and Jil v. State of Kerala to contend that investigation by non-notified officers renders the proceedings void for want of proper authority. The respondents dispute the contention, asserting the reports were valid and within the government’s powers. After hearing, the court agrees with the petitioners, holding that the investigation was conducted by officers not empowered as Abkari Officers, invalidating the final report and depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court discharges the petitioners under CrPC 227 and quashes the charge, quashing all proceedings in the related cases. The decision emphasizes the necessity of proper Abkari Officer authority for investigation in Abkari cases.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 19048/2020) concerns a batch of retired employees of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. who seek retrospective enhancement of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) 1995 based on their actual salary at retirement, contending denial of revised pension. They rely on Exts. P1–P3 judgments, Exts. P8 order, and Ext. P9 judgment, contending that pension calculations should be on the basis of actual pay beyond the Rs. 6,500 ceiling and that employers be permitted to contribute to EPS 1995 on the basis of actual salaries exceeding the limit. They pray for mandamus to compute monthly pension accordingly and to permit back remittance of 8.33% employer contribution for excess salary. The respondents subscribe to the view that the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that EPFO must follow that decision; petitioners may file representations for consideration under Sunil Kumar. The Kerala High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioners to file representations within one month, directing the 3rd respondent to consider grievances in light of Sunil Kumar, and to issue a decision within three months in accordance with law. The judgment thus advances practical redress by invoking binding precedents rather than granting immediate pension enhancements.
The petitioners, erstwhile daily wage employees of the Kerala Coir Workers Welfare Fund Board, were regularised in 1996. Consequent orders brought the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme, 1995 to bear on their service conditions. They contend that their entitlement to full pension under the EPF Pension Scheme depends on their continuance in service up to 58 years, and challenge the Government’s refusals to enhance the retirement age from 56 to 58. The Board’s Director Board recommended increasing the age to 58 and the Government, by Exts. P6 and P23, maintained the 56-year retirement age. The petitioners point out that other welfare funds had raised retirement ages to 58 (Exhs. P12–P18) and argue the Government’s rejections are unlawful. They seek (i) a mandamus to raise the age to 58; (ii) permission to continue till 58; (iii) approval of Exhibit P11 draft Special Rules fixing 58. The Government contends that fixation of retirement age is a policy matter; there is no vested right until service regulations are amended. The court relies on New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Chandra Mohan Varma to emphasize executive policy. It ultimately holds Exts. P6 and P23 unassailable, denies retrospective effect of Ext. P24, but directs remuneration for the period petitioners served beyond 56, to be paid within three months.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 873 of 2013) before the Kerala High Court arises from a partition suit OS No.999/2010 concerning six items of property between the daughters of Choyikutty and the wife and children of Choyikutty's brother Krishnan. The plaint schedule contains six items; items 1–5 are claimed as ancestral properties from Choyikutty, while item 6 is her self-acquisition bequeathed by Ext.X1 Will dated 03.01.1976 to Krishnan, Krishnan’s predecessor. The trial court held items 1–3 to be ancestral and items 4–5 to be self-acquired, and it decreed partition of 1/5 share to each plaintiff. The defendants challenge the decree on two fronts: first, that items 1–5 are ancestral with Krishnan having a birth-right, and second, that Ext.X1 Will is a genuine disposition of the self-acquired item 6. The plaintiffs contend, and the High Court analyzes, that items 1–3 are ancestral while items 4–5 are self-acquired; item 6 pertains to Krishnan and is not subject to partition. The court scrutinizes the Will’s due execution under Sections 68–69 of the Indian Evidence Act and considers Section 90 (presumption of genuineness) but emphasizes that it cannot rely solely on presumption. It ultimately reasons that item 6 is not partitionable, while items 1–5 are to be partitioned with recalibrated shares in favor of the plaintiffs, guided by a later Supreme Court decision in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 737).
This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar) delivering on 13 February 2023 in OP (FC) No. 77 of 2023 arising from a Family Court matter in Muvattupuzha. The respondents in OP (FC) No. 1103 of 2022 before the Family Court sought to declare them legal guardians of a minor, Anton John Jebin (about 2½ years old), and to obtain permanent custody and injunctive relief restraining the petitioners from taking the child. The petitioners approached this Court under Article 227 challenging Ext. P4, an interim injunction order dated 07.11.2022 granted in I.A. No.2/2022 in the same O.P., on the ground that it was unsafe to entrust custody to the paternal grandparents while the mother (and petitioner) intends to take the child to the UK where she works. The High Court, while declining to review Ext. P4 under Article 227, directed the Family Court to decide I.A. Nos. 2/2022 and 5/2023 in O.P. 1103/2022 on 14.02.2023 after hearing both sides, with possible interim custody orders by 15.02.2023. The decision underscores welfare of the child and the need to balance parental rights against the child’s best interests, citing Nil Ratan Kundu and Yashita Sahu to emphasize humane, welfare-centric custody determinations and the child’s right to contact with both parents when feasible.
This writ petition challenges the acquisition and demolition of residential properties for the Perumbavoor bye-pass road in Perumbavoor Village, Kerala. Petitioners Dr. Jayapradeep, Dr. Rekha Jayapradeep, and Indira Devi claim that lands in Sy. No. 2 and 3, Block 112, were included in the proposed alignment and that the process lacks transparency under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Fair Compensation Act). The project was designed to reduce traffic congestion and was initially handled by the Public Works Department (PWD) but later entrusted to Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited (RBDCK Ltd) as SPV, with KIIFB funding. A modified Detailed Project Report reduced the right-of-way width from 45 to 25 metres, and the KIIFB required cost-cutting. A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was prepared by YSSO, with an Expert Committee recommending changes on 22.02.2020. Ext. P8 (Section 11(1) notification) was issued on 07.08.2020, objections were filed under Rule 20(3) of the Kerala Fair Compensation Rules, and Ext. P11/ P15 records show the 5th respondent’s rejection on 01.12.2020. Ext. P18 (Section 19 declaration) followed on 17.08.2021. The petitioners challenge Exts. P8, P15 and P18, alleging lack of transparency and non-compliance with the Act. The Government contends that the alignment is project-wide and properly sanctioned, and that there was adequate opportunity to object. The Court ultimately dismisses the petition, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in road alignment matters and finding no patent illegality or malafides.
The appeal concerns CRL.A No.1752 of 2006, challenging the conviction in S.C.No.362/2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Thalassery. The accused were convicted for offences including rioting with deadly weapons (IPC 324, 307 read with 34) and offences under the Explosives Substances Act (sections 3 and 5) as well as Section 149 IPC. The overall prosecution case relates to an incident on 7.8.1999 at Vannathimoola where the accused, an unlawful assembly, allegedly attacked PW2 Bhaskaran with a bomb and weapons, injuring him severely. The trial record relied heavily on PWs 1-6 and accompanying exhibits, but the Kerala High Court scrutinizes the evidence for serious discrepancies and contradictions, including deviations between the First Information Statement and deposition, delay in recording PW2’s statement, and inconsistent versions about who accompanied the victim to hospital, who identified the accused, and how light was used to identify them. Many witnesses were CPI(M) sympathisers, while the accused were BJP-RSS; the court emphasizes careful scrutiny in factional politics. After a detailed analysis, it holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying on established principles of credibility and intrinsic inconsistencies, and thus allows the appeal and acquits the appellants.
Facts and background: SASI P P runs a hotel named 'P P Hotel' at Perumanna, Kozhikode. The Ext.P1 FTE&OS licence, originally in the name of the petitioner’s father, was valid until 31.03.2023. After the father’s death on 10.09.2022, the petitioner applied for renewal in his name (Ext.P5, 12.12.2022) and, seeking a fresh licence, submitted Ext.P7 (23.01.2023). The licence cited in Ext.P6 shows that the earlier licence was allowed to continue till 31.03.2023. The landlord is involved in Rent Control proceedings (RCP 23/2018) in Kozhikode. The petitioner relied on Kattoor Khadeeja v. P.K.C. Mariyumma and others (2020) to contend that the legal heir of a deceased tenant cannot be forced to obtain the landlord’s consent for renewal, a view also reflected in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999). The Standing Counsel argues renewal is not required where a valid licence exists and what is before the court is a matter of maintaining the existing licence rather than renewal. The court examined Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules (1996) and found the respondents’ stance unsupported. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the Panchayat to treat Exts.P5 and P7 as valid applications and to reconsider them afresh, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the landlord, within one month.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the cancellation of bail granted to two accused in Crime No.1177 of 2020 (CC 2110/2021) lodged at Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. The petitioners were released on bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, on 21.12.2020 with a condition not to commit any other crime. It is alleged that the petitioners, while on bail, assaulted the same defacto complainant in Crime No.307 of 2022, registered at the same police station, resulting in grievous injuries including near-total amputation of the complainant’s right lower limb. The Magistrate cancelled the bail on 02.02.2023. The petition contends that the order is perverse, and that even if the allegations are true, the complainant’s provocation and the time gap should negate cancellation; it further argues the lapse of time since bail was granted was not properly considered. The Public Prosecutor contends that the assault violated bail conditions and threatened witnesses, justifying cancellation. The court cites Godson and Other v. State of Kerala and Renjith v. State of Kerala to outline the standard for cancelling bail, emphasizing cogent, overwhelming supervening circumstances and the stage of the case. The court ultimately concludes that the supervening circumstances render it no longer conducive to a fair trial, upholding the cancellation, while allowing scope for regular bail in due course. The petition is dismissed.
WA 1481/2015; CO 136/2015; CO 180/2015; WA 1480/2015; WA 1515/2015; WA 1538/2015 This is a batch of writ appeals and cross-objections arising out of common judgment dated 10.04.2015 in W.P.(C) Nos.12990/2012, 627/2013, 16602/2013 and 22555/2013, concerning retirement age of employees of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. The Beverages Corporation had historically fixed a retirement age of 55 years (Rule 43 of KSBC Employees Service Rules, 1986) but resolved on 27.05.2005 to raise this age to 58, aligning with public sector practice and EPF pension considerations. The State Government rejected this proposal by G.O. 409/2005/TD dated 02.07.2005. The Board’s proposal and its rejection led to contest, with the earlier judiciary granting declaratory relief in 2007 that employees should be permitted to work till 58, and that pension/benefits would align with extended service. Following stay actions by the Supreme Court, the Beverages Corporation in the interregnum retired employees according to Rule 43. The present judgment reaffirms that retirement as declared in Kavirajan’s line of cases is in rem and extends to all similarly situated, rejecting the Beverages Corporation’s contention that the relief should be restricted. It holds that where the judgment is in rem, laches and delays cannot deprive others of relief, and that the employees are entitled to 58 years with corresponding back wages and benefits, while cross-objections regarding compensation are partially sustained. The court ultimately dismisses the writ appeals and cross-objections, upholding the declaratory relief and extending associated benefits to the retired employees.
The Kerala High Court, in WP(C) No.30901/2022, examines the challenge to Ext.P3, an order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration under the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner contends that the show-cause notice Ext.P2 was issued in Form GST REG-31 (relating to suspension, not cancellation) and that it failed to specify the period for non-filing returns or provide material particulars, thereby lacking jurisdiction. The petitioner also asserts that no appeal under Section 107 or revocation under Section 30 was pursued within prescribed time. Relying on Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court decisions (Suguna Cut Piece Centre; Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works), counsel urges that show-cause notices must be issued in a physical form with complete particulars and a hearing prior to cancellation, and that the technical glitches cannot justify a defective process. The learned Senior Government Pleader maintains that the department followed due procedure and that the petitioner defaulted in filing returns, with no illegality in canceling registration. The judge, after careful scrutiny of Ext.P2 (a Form GST REG-31 notice) and the cited authorities, finds the notice vague and lacking necessary details, and accordingly allows the writ petition, quashing Ext.P3. The court notes that restoration of registration will require the petitioner to file all defaulted returns with due tax, interest, late fee, and penalties within two weeks of restoration. The decision underscores the need for proper, detailed, and timely process in cancellation proceedings under CGST/SGST.
