Direct Tax[Income Tax] Assessing Officer Not Only An Adjudicator But Also An Investigator, Cannot Remain Oblivious To Claim Without Enquiry: Kerala HCCase Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxCase Number: ITA NO. 77 OF 2018The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the...
Direct Tax
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 77 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih
Case Number: WA NO. 1413 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry
Case Number: ITA NO. 20 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”
Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”
Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 11 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.
Case Title: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A.NO.32 OF 2023
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court stated that the amounts received by an assessee as compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his landed property would be treated as income under the head of 'Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “Interest amounts received by an assessee in respect of delayed payment of compensation under the LAA will be treated as accruals to the principal compensation amount and be classified as “Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 (28A), the provisions of Section 56 of the I.T. Act will not be attracted in such cases.”
Case Title: M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 19152 of 2024
The Kerala High Court on Friday (2ndMay) held that it need not interfere with the action of the Income Tax Department seizing Rs. 1 Crore Rupees from the bank account of CPI(M) Thrissur District Committee in the Bank of India branch in Thrissur The Income-Tax Department had in the days leading up to the 2024 Lok Sabha election, froze the bank account on the ground that there was a mismatch in the annual returns filed by the party. The petition challenging this action was filed by M. M. Varghese, the former Secretary of the District Committee.
“The pleadings and the materials placed for consideration do not indicate any malafides…..Hence, the satisfaction arrived at by the respondents to initiate the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be perverse or legally untenable. Considering the scope of interference under 226 with a proceeding under 132 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents do not warrant any interference at this juncture,” ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 11709 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no provision of rejecting the appeal merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority must decide an appeal by strictly following the mandate contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Section 250, no other meaning can be assigned to the words “points for determination” as it obviously leads to the question that arises for consideration based on the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to refer to the points raised in the appeal, and to determine the same by supplying reasons for such determination.”
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust
Case Number: W.A.NO.2042 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Section 245C of Income Tax Act does not require prior cut-off date; pending 153A/153C notice sufficient for settlement application.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Section 245C does not prescribe any prior cut-off date for an assessee to satisfy the requirements for filing an application before the Interim Board for Settlement, and the only statutory requirement is that the assessee should have a pending 'case' at the time of filing the application for settlement, then so long as the assessee had a 'live and un-adjudicated' notice under Sections 153A/153C as on the date of filing the application, the application had to be considered on merits by the Board.”
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd.
Case Number: ITA NO. 9 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that assessment based on DVO's (Department Valuation Officer) valuation cannot be revised under Section 263 of Income Tax Act in absence of concrete material.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that “as on the date of invoking his power under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner could not have had a 'reason to believe' that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the material to inform that 'reason to believe' did not exist on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. His exercise of power under S.263 was therefore clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO.9318 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Mr. Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 430 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 12164 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15933 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17312 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.12516 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Case Number: W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: Mrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40744 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 58 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.
Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.200 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 42 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19544 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT
Case Number: ITA NO.51 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the deduction of bad debts. It allows the taxpayer to claim a deduction for bad debts that have been written off in the books of accounts during the previous financial year.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TA NO. 55 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.
The bench opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.
Case Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 63 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.
Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh Consideration
Case Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 39703/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4193 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court has held that disclosure of income and payment of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not preclude initiation of proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that the fact that the assessees have disclosed the income in the return and the same was proceeded against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7053 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies not engaged in banking are not entitled to TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) exemption under section 194A (3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was dealing with a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the proviso to section 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a restriction, based on the gross receipts or turnover of the Societies, in the matter of exemption from the obligation to make TDS from the income as the interest on deposits.
Case Title: Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33642 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be granted another opportunity for a hearing.
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.45 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments, as it was bound by an interim order which prohibited such deduction.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the SBI, having been restrained by an interim order of the High Court from deducting TDS, could be held to be an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments.
Case Title: Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 81 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a tribunal cannot travel beyond the grounds not cited by the commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that only one reason was highlighted by the Commissioner for exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal having found the said reason as not a valid one, the Tribunal should have stopped there rather than making further observations as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the extension of the benefits under Section 11 of the Act through the assessment order.
Case Title: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27452 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that income derived from public religious/charitable trusts is not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that income derived from properties belonging to the deity or temple does not become the income of the administrative body merely because the body manages the institution. The administrative body must independently establish that the income claimed is its own statutory income in order to attract the exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Interest On Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.5 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court has held that interest on delayed agricultural income tax is not deductible under Section 37 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the interest paid on account of the delayed payment of Agricultural Income Tax is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43816 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an Income Tax Appeal cannot be rejected solely for the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that none of the provisions in Section 250 of the Income Tax Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the assessee/appellant, without going into the merits of the case.
Case Title: The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA NO.64 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that once a bank accepts valid Form 15H declarations from senior citizen depositors under Section 197A(1C) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for non-deductions of TDS (deduct tax at source) on interest income.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the bank (appellant) has to be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct TDS on interest income paid to senior citizens who have furnished declarations in Form 15H.
Case Title: Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala
Case Number: OTC NO.1 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that expenditure incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of rubber trees, including expenses relating to replantation and replacement, is revenue in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon were examining the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for replantation/ replacement of rubber trees as well as their upkeep with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act, read with the provisions of Rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules,1962.
Indirect Tax
Case Title: Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40450 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.
The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “…the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…”
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
Case : Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner
Case no.: W.P(C).NO.25724 OF 2024
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench. It endorsed the prima facie view expressed by the single bench (Justice P Gopinath) that notification was not necessary for cross-empowerement.
Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2300 OF 2015
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid.
“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.
Case Title: Centre C Edtech Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 1934 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that illegal cash seizure by GST Department and handing over to Income Tax Department is illegal under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jyasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. held that “Cash amount seized from the premises of the assessee cannot be retained either by the GST Department of the State or the Income Tax Department prior to a finalisation of respective proceedings initiated by them.”
Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
Case Number: W.A.NO.258 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.
“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu
Case Number: WA NO. 238 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23872 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 2129 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”
Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
Case Number: WA NO. 709 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.
“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 3 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.T.REV. NO.106 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report. The Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed,
“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”
Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WA NO. 2183 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. were addressing the issue of whether the customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.
Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India
Case no.: W.A.NO.1659 OF 2024
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.
As per the 2021 amendment made to the CGST Act, the definition of "supply" was amended to include within its fold "activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." Also, this amendment was given a retrospective effecf from 01.07.2017.
A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 4 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.
The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.
Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 14743 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal without any determination solely on the ground of non-appearance despite three adjournments.
Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16984 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts.
The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years.
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Case Number: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification…” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as 'foreign going vessel' for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country. On examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 9086 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit. The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 753 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that no right to reinstatement of customs broker license after breach of trust with customs department.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “…..the relationship between the Customs Department and the Customs Broker appointed in terms of the Regulations is essentially one of trust. Once that trust is broken, and the Customs Broker ceases to inspire the confidence of the Customs Department in relation to his functioning, he loses the right to seek a reinstatement of his license under the Regulations.”
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.46801 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 42612 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962 which outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18501 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Case Number: ICR (OT.REV) NO. 3 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
The bench opined that “the input tax credit can be legitimately availed by the purchasing dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even in cases where the selling dealer failed to remit the tax due to the government, provided that the purchasing dealer has strictly complied with all statutory requirements including possession of genuine tax invoices as required under the statute.”
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4274 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K.
Case Number: WA NO. 1543 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute.
Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO.32 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.
Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16709 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%. The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.
Case : Vinod Mukundan and others v. Union of India and others
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 36636/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has granted interim relief to retired employees of the Union Bank by allowing them to renew their group health insurance policies without paying the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the premium.
The Court passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Vinod Mukundan and others, including the All India Union Bank Pensioners & Retirees Federation, challenging the levy of 18% GST on group health insurance policies. While the GST levy on individual health insurance has been completely waived off with effect from September 22, group health insurance policies have not been exempted from GST. The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Case Title: Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44655 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the GST Department to take action on alleged tax evasion involving frozen chicken being sold at 0% GST instead of the applicable 5%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the petitioner, who is a chicken meat dealer, had highlighted serious allegations of tax evasion in sale of frozen chicken in Kerala.
Case Title: M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 37299 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that a contractor can claim increased GST (Goods and Services Tax) during work, even if bills were paid before the rate increase.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that at the time of execution of the contract, the rate was only 5% and the increase took place during the execution of the work. Thus, the assessee is entitled to a differential amount of tax.
Case Title: Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40341 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a cancelled GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim the ITC (Input Tax Credit) benefit under Section 16(6) CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that Section 16(6) does not envisage a fresh cause of action in respect of the taxpayers, whose registration is cancelled, for getting the restoration of the registration, only for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 16(6).
Case Title: M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15898 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a case, Section 25AA(5) is applicable, and the option of compounding shall not be cancelled, and the suppressed turnover alone shall be assessed at the scheduled rate applicable to the goods. In view of Section 25AA(5), the Notices proposing to cancel the permission to pay at a compounded rate are clearly unsustainable.
Case Title: M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17324 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an affidavit by professionals, such as a cost accountant, given during a personal hearing, cannot be ignored, especially when a state tax officer admits facts referred therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that when a professional swears an affidavit before this Court, highlighting the matters that transpired during the course of the hearing, the same cannot be simply ignored, particularly in a situation where, to some extent, there is an admission forthcoming from the part of the State Tax Officer with regard to the matters referred to in the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee can be granted one more opportunity to be heard.
Case Title: M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24617 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that the department cannot proceed against a recipient for ITC mismatch without first initiating proceedings against the supplier.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers before the issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CSGT Act. This amounts to the failure on the part of the department in following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 42.
Case Title: M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.18245 OF 2008
The Kerala High Court has held that an Ayurvedic Treatment centre is to be classified as a 'hospital' and not 'hotel', and therefore, luxury tax cannot be imposed.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the Ayurvedic Treatment Centre admits patients undergoing prescribed Ayurvedic treatment for a minimum duration, without offering hotel amenities, it qualifies as a hospital and luxury tax is not liable under the Luxury Tax Act.
Case Title: P.P. Paul v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 26259 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that payments made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) are valid if they fall within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that SVLDRS proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and hence covered under Supreme Court's suo moto extension orders.
Case Title: P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43431 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that once the plinth area of a building increases due to additional construction, a fresh building tax assessment must be carried out under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after examining the documents produced by the assessee, stated that the assessee had carried out additional constructions after the initial construction, which was subjected to assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Case Title: M/S National Timbers v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15946 OF 2011
The Kerala High Court has held that a lower conversion factor is applicable for timber imports made before 11.05.2012.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined the issue regarding the refund of additional customs duty paid for the import of timber from Myanmar and other foreign countries.
Case Title: Sri. Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33519 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the classification of 'Nata de Coco' is a factual matter that must be decided by the adjudicating authority through statutory proceedings and not by the writ court.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that since it is a statutory proceeding contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, which should be followed from the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, the question as to be sustainability of the classification cannot be considered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This is because the adjudication of the dispute involved, being a factual aspect, it has to be examined by the competent authorities, and this Court cannot conduct a parallel enquiry in connection with the same.
Case Title: M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State)
Case Number: WA NO. 1403 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court upheld the motor vehicle tax demand on a car registered in Puducherry after finding no evidence that it was actually used there.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon noted that the NIL returns do not reflect any business being carried out by the assessee from Puducherry. The bench opined that the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the vehicle was not being used in Kerala to attract tax.
Case Title: James Varghese v. Pala Municipality
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44912 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that under Section 509(11) of the Municipality Act, only the tax component shown in the demand notice is required to be paid for filing an appeal. The bench clarified that the Municipality cannot insist on payment of penal interest or any other additional charges for entertaining the appeal.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that the obligation of the assessee while submitting an appeal is only to make the payment of the tax component in the demand and nothing more. As far as the penal interest and other charges are concerned, the same can be enforced by invoking the appropriate proceedings, subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 45451 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), being a non-obstante provision, overrides the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) once returns are filed within the cut-off date specified therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated, Section 16(5) starts with the wording “notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection 4.” This would indicate that, once the taxpayer submits the return within the period stipulated in Section 16(5), the time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST loses its significance.
Case Title: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of proceeding under the provisions of the statute arises.
Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1106 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to impose tax on the entire consideration received by the assessee from their clients/customers. The question of the Union imposing tax on the very same transaction in such a scenario would be unconstitutional.
Case Title: M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2110 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that even though Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) does not prescribe any limitation period, penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since the notice was issued with reference to the assessment year 2011-12, the period of five years had come to an end on 31.03.2017. The notice was issued admittedly only on 20.12.2018. The above notice is beyond the reasonable period of time of five years, under such circumstances.
Case Title: M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1745 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court granted relief to Bharti Airtel by holding that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges and telecom value-added services cannot be treated as 'goods' under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on which any tax can be levied.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian addressed a case filed by Bharti Airtel, the assessee, challenging the assessing order both on grounds of limitation and on merits, seeking to clarify that SIM cards, rechargeable coupons, fixed monthly charges and value-added services (towards SMS, ringtones, download music, etc.) do not constitute 'goods' under the KVAT Act.