Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241 - 244 ]St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244Judgments/ Orders This...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241 - 244 ]
St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
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: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
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: Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court held that a person against whom vigilance has filed an FIR after conducting a preliminary enquiry along with the approval granted by the appropriate authority cannot be included in the select list for promotion.
The Bench of the Court comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar following the judgments in State of Kerala and Others v Babu Prasad (2019) held that the condition under Note(i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of KS&SSR is fulfilled if a vigilance case is initiated after conducting a preliminary enquiry to prima facie establish the charge. The Court clarified that this includes the Vigilance filing an FIR after conducting a preliminary enquiry against an officer.
Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
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.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Suresh M. V. v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 15762 of 2021
The Kerala High Court has directed the Police officer investigating the Karuvannur bank scam to conduct the probe without coming under any sort of pressure from political or bureaucratical quarters. The Court ordered that if the investigating officer fails to perform his duty, he will bear the brunt.
Justice D. K. Singh ordered thus in a petition filed by a former employee of the bank seeking CBI investigation into the 100- crore bank fraud uncovered in Thrissur's Karuvannur Co-operative Bank.
Case Title: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited v Union of India and Others
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet 427/ 2025 (Filing No.)
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (16th April) ordered status quo be maintained for two months with respect to the report filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, alleging financial fraud to the tune of several crores.
Justice TR Ravi ordered thus in a petition filed by CMRL challenging the Special Court order taking cognizance of the investigation report. The Court passed the interim order after a legal issue was raised regarding the applicability of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 which mandates hearing of the accused before the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Case Title: Chandramohanan K. C. and Others v Union of India and Others
Case No: WA 1704 of 2023
The Kerala High Court ordered that all arbitration proceedings invoking the National Highway Act, 1956 pending before the District Collectors to be kept on hold till further orders.
The Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ordered thus after noting that many of the cases were disposed without giving parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. The Court also took into account that a large number of cases are pending before the District Collector. The Court observed that the Collector who is discharging other duties may not be in a position to attend each of the pending cases.
Case Title: M. R. Ajayan v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(PIL) 24/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (16th April) directed the Additional Solicitor General Adv. AR. L. Sundaresan to submit the list of persons involved in the order made by the Interim Board for Settlement for Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL).
“The ASG is directed to place the list of the persons involved in Exhibit P1 order in a sealed cover to this court on next date of hearing.” Ordered Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P. M. Manoj
Plea Filed In Kerala High Court Protesting Installation Of RSS Flags, Banners In Kollam Temple
Case Title: Prathinraj v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 16089 of 2025
A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court alleging that certain persons have installed flags resembling those of RSS and Bajrang Dal in the temple premises of Manjippuzha Bhagavathi Bhadrakkal Temple, Kollam during its festival.
The petitioner has sought directions from the Court to ensure that the temple premises is used only for religious purposes.
India Justice Report (IJR) which is a collaborative effort of DAKSH, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Common Cause, Centre For Social Justice, Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy and TISS-Prayas has ranked Kerala at No. 1 in Judiciary among the large and mid-sized states. The report aims to rank the capacity of formal justice system operating in the states using the government's own statistics.