Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 14 – 20, 2025

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 WeekGST Appellate Authority Must Pass Order On Merits Even If There's No Appearance; Can't Dismiss For Default: Kerala High CourtCase : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241The 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.Income Tax | Amount Received As Compensation For Compulsory Acquisition Of Landed Property Is Income Under 'Capital Gains': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax OfficerCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242In 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.”Person Against Whom Vigilance Proceedings Are Initiated Cannot Be Included In List For Promotion: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243The 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.Kerala Municipality Act | Building Owners Liable To Pay Revised Property Tax For Past Three Years After Adjusting Previously Paid Amount: HCCase Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal CorporationCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244The 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 WeekKaruvannur Bank Scam: Kerala High Court Cautions Police To Conduct Probe Without Coming Under Political PressureCase Title: Suresh M. V. v State of Kerala and OthersCase No: WP(C) 15762 of 2021The 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.Does BNSS Apply To Cases Investigated Before July 1, 2024? Kerala High Court Orders Status Quo On SFIO Report Against CMRLCase Title: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited v Union of India and OthersCase No: Crl.Rev.Pet 427/ 2025 (Filing No.)The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (16th April) ordered...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 14 – 20, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags