w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam v/s Raphel T. Joseph


Company & Directors' Information:- S & S GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300TN2001PTC046470

Company & Directors' Information:- KERALA SERVICE CO LTD [Active] CIN = U65191KL1928PLC000532

Company & Directors' Information:- R P GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2007PTC115143

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

Company & Directors' Information:- LAW & LAW PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017020

Company & Directors' Information:- L C LAW & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1978PTC031529

    OT. Rev. Nos. 75, 77 to 82, 84, 86, 91 92 & 94 of 2018

    Decided On, 22 August 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

    For the Petitioner: Government Pleader. For the Respondents: Akhil Suresh, T. Archana, G. Harikumar (Gopinathan Nair), K.G. Somanath, K.P. Abdul Azees, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. All these revision petitions are filed under Section 63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act’ for short). All these revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the first appellate authority, passed in favour of the assessee. The State is in revision against the said order.

2. The assessee had challenged the revised assessments passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, with respect to different years. The permission granted to the assessee for payment of tax at the compounded rate as provided under Section 8(a)(ii), was found to be illegal and unsustainable, in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.C.Sebastian v. State of Kerala[(2008) 16 KTR 117(Ker)] in which this Court had relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras [(1975) 35 STC 24 (SC)], to hold that ‘Bus body’ built on chassis supplied by the customer is a sale of goods, which will attract payment of Tax under Entry 94 of the 1st Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act, for short). The Assessing Authority found that the assessee was not entitled for making payment of tax at the compounded rate, and therefore the assessments already completed were re-opened, by invoking powers vested under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.

3. In the first appeals filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), the revised assessments were found to be unsustainable, based on an observation made that the procedure for assessment initiated under Section 25 of the KVAT Act is not in accordance with law, since the permission granted for payment of tax at the compounded rate was not cancelled by invoking Section 56 of the KVAT Act.

4. The revenue had taken up the matter in second appeals filed before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed cross objections in those appeals. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer could not have re-opened the completed assessments by invoking Section 25 of the KVAT Act, because the order permitting compounding remained in force and the same was not cancelled. It was found that, once the assessee is permitted to remit the tax at the compounded rate in terms of Section 8 of the KVAT Act, any proceedings under Section 25 cannot be initiated without having the order under Section 8 cancelled, by following the procedure contemplated under Section 56 of the KVAT Act. The Tribunal also found that the revised assessments with respect to the years 2006-2007 &2007-2008 are time barred, because the proceeding were initiated after expiry of the period of five years stipulated.

5. While considering the revision petitions, we notice that the Tribunal had placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ali A.M.[(2017) 25 KTR 73 (Ker)], wherein it was held that an order permitting compounding will remain in force until it is cancelled in appropriate proceedings; and therefore the assessment made under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, without cancelling such permission, cannot be sustained. In these revision petitions, a question of law is seen framed as to whether the judgment in State of Kerala v. Mohammed Ali A.M. (supra) requires reconsideration to decide whether a proceedings under Section 25 of KVAT Act can be initiated without cancelling the permission granted under Section 8of the KVAT Act.

6. Learned Government pleader appearing for the State/revision petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.T.Rev. No.92 of 2011, dated 15.12.2011 (State of Kerala v. George Thomas). Referring to identical provision as that of Section 25 of the KVAT Act contained in Section 19(1) of the KGST Act, which enables re-opening of the assessment, it was held that there is no difference between the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) of the Act and the supervisory power vested on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act. It was a held that, Section 19(1) also will apply to an assessment completed based on compounding and such completed assessments are also amenable for re-opening by invoking Section 19(1). For taking such a view, the Division Bench had placed reliance on another decision of this court in Joy Alukkas Traders (I) Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT SN 87 (C. No.105). In the said case a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is unable to accept the proposition that an option exercised by the assessee to pay tax under the compounded scheme, once accepted by the Assessing Officer, amounts to a contract between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. But, on the facts of the said case, permission granted for payment of tax at the compounded rate was already revised by the Deputy Commissioner in exercising power vested under Section 35 of the KGST Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee had contended that, the view taken by the Division Bench in George Thomas (S.T.Rev.No.92 of 2011) is not correct, mainly because it had relied on the decision in Joy Alukkas Traders (supra), which is a case where the permission for compounding was in fact cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the revisional power. Secondly it was argued that, in George Thomas (supra) the issue was not discussed base on the question whether the permission for compounding will create a concluded contract or not. Further argument is that, the re-opening of a completed assessment under the compounding scheme can be possible only to the extent of the amount or quantum of tax payable under the scheme and not by disallowing payment of the tax at the compounded rate, which is already permitted.

8. Learned counsel had placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Koothattukulam Liquors v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [(2014) 72 VST 353 (SC)] wherein it is held that, payment of tax at the compounded rate is on the basis of a bilateral agreement between the parties, for which the dealer is obliged to execute an agreement undertaking to pay the sales tax in lump sum and this assessed at an agreed rate, as envisaged under the Act. The contract of compounding is a statutory contract under a scheme in which the State Government can increase or decrease the rate of tax. It is an invitation to offer for compounding for each financial year, resulting in an agreement qua such financial year. Therefore the contract between the dealer and the assessing authority can be annulled by the parties only under any circumstances which are provided under provisions of the Contract Act. The dealer having once exercised its option under the composition scheme, cannot therefore be permitted to turn around and rescind from its liability. It is held further that, the composition of tax is nothing but an alternative route for assessment regulated by the terms of a contract between the assessee and the Assessing Authority to arrive at the same destination. Therefore the dealer who had voluntarily and with full knowledge of the features of the alternate method of taxation has opted to be governed by it, a fortiori cannot in the lean season, claim for his assessment to be made under the regular assessment in the same assessment year.

9. It is also pointed out that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Kerala and another [(2014) 71 VST 110 (SC)] has reiterated that, when the dealer is given an option for payment of tax at the compounded rate and once such a option is exercised and accepted by the concerned authority, it is no longer open to the dealer to request for a regular assessment as envisaged under Section 5 or 5A of the KGST Act. Therefore it cannot be said that, when a dealer is assessed under the compounding scheme as envisaged under Section 7 of the Act, is also being assessed under the regular procedure of assessment, and has to be made liable to pay the additional sales tax.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent had placed further reliance on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/S. Zodiac Regency v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another (W.A. No.746 of 2011 dated 23.6.2011). It is held therein that, when a compounding application is submitted by the assessee and the assessee started making payment of tax under the scheme of compounding, which is not objected by the Assessing Officer, the only presumption is that the Officer had accepted the offer. Once the compounding application is filed and tax is paid in terms of the same, the same binds both the assessee and the department, unless the assessee recalls the application before starting payment of tax in terms of the compounding scheme. It is pointed out that, a similar view has been taken by another Division Bench in the judgment in WA No.413/2015 dated 24-01-2019 (Commercial Tax Officer and another V. M/s. Sicillia Hotel Pvt. Ltd.)

11. From the rival arguments advanced, it is evident that there exists divergent views among the legal precedents. In George Thomas (supra) relying on Joy Alukkas Traders (supra) it is held that the powers vested under Section 19 (1) & 35 of the KGST Act (which are in pari materia with Section 25 and 56 of the KVAT Act) are one and same in nature. But considering the rulings cited on behalf of the assessee, including Koothattukulam Liquors (supra), Bhima Jewellers (supra) and other judgments, there is a reiteration of the legal principle that the option for compounding once accepted creates a concluded contract which cannot be rescinded by one of the parties or annulled through a re-opening of the assessment concluded.

12. While referring to relevant provisions, we notice that, the Rules corresponding to Section 8 of the KVAT Act prescribes a procedure which render all the characteristics of a concluded contract by virtue of the permission granted for compounding. Question arises whether the Assessing Officer can revoke the permission by exercising any of the powers vested on him? Of course, under Section 66 of the KVAT Act the Assessing Officer is vested with power to revoke or rectify any orders passed by him. So also under Section 56 of the KVAT Act the Deputy Commissioner is vested with powers to revise any orders passed by any subordinate authority. The provisions under Section 25 of the KVAT Act enables the Assessing Officer to re-open any assessment completed, for the reasons mentioned therein. Can that power be exercised to re-open an assessment completed based on the permission for compounding granted, wh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ich was held to be in the nature of a concluded contract, is the crucial aspect which needs decision. 13. Learned Government Pleader also raises a contention that the permission for compounding granted in these cases need to be treated as non est in the eye of law, because those orders suffered from the lack of jurisdiction and it becomes a nullity and is void ab initio. The said argument is a different question which need to be considered apart from the question as to whether a re-opening under Section 25 is possible without cancelling the permission for compounding. It is debatable whether the permission for compounding granted lacks jurisdiction or whether it was only an erroneous exercise of the jurisdiction. 14. As observed above, there exists divergent views in various legal precedents. Therefore, we think it only appropriate to refer the questions involved, for an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench. Hence the questions mentioned in paragraphs 12 & 13 are referred for decisions of a Full Bench. The Registry shall post the above cases before the Full Bench, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
31-08-2020 M/s Progressive Construction Ltd., Muzaffarpur Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-08-2020 Badavath Leela Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration ((Spl.(Law & Order), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 Prabhakar Gwal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
29-07-2020 Saju Nambadan, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (LAW), Ernakulam & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2020 Balaji Rexime Goods Versus Assistant Commissioner & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Kammampathi Venkanna Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Spl (Law & Order) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
02-07-2020 BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi West & Another High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commisioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi South & Another High Court of Delhi
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its Chief Law Officer & Others Versus H.S. Pankaja & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Rapolu Bhaskar Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Law Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-05-2020 A. Mohammed Hussain & Others Versus State by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
25-03-2020 Harry Memelink Versus Collins & May Law Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
27-02-2020 Gayathri Chinna Nallasamy Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University represented by its Registrar Perungudi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Mallika Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Law, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
21-02-2020 P. Sellaperumal & Others Versus Union of India Rep. by The Secretary to Government (Law), Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 John K. Illikkadan Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2020 S. Santhanagopal & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Law & Company Affairs Shastri Bhavan New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Ajay Ramesh Dinode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrance, Law & Judicial Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles rep. by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan & Others Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Kaish Impex Private Limited (Through its Director – Deepak Kumar Goyal) Versus The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Branch Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-01-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus K.P. Pradeepan & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-01-2020 In Goods of Late Sandhaya Devi Versus ----------- High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-01-2020 Kanchan India Limited and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax & Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Mysuru Rural Division, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer Versus Devadas High Court of Karnataka
01-01-2020 Union Bank of India V/S Jagdamba Goods Carrier and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
20-12-2019 K.S. Jagadeep Versus The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Department of Law Justice & Human Rights Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Refex Energy Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Madurai Versus Union of India, Through its Secretary (Legislative), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-12-2019 C. Raja Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Taramani High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Ramesh Baburao Firode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
11-12-2019 Vincent Raja Versus The State by The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order) K-2, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
03-12-2019 V.S. Sinimol Versus The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-11-2019 Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary Versus C.A. Soumya & Others High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 Lupin Limited V/S Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
25-11-2019 Anil Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Justice Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-11-2019 Himanshu & Others Versus University of Delhi, Faculty of Law through Registrar High Court of Delhi
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
16-11-2019 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary, Kerala & Others Versus P. Swapna & Another High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 R. Ravikumar & Others Versus The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), Represented by the Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 K. Vignesh Kumar Versus The Director of Legal Studies, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Subhashish Paul, Superintendent, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Dibrugarh Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-10-2019 Karma Enterprises, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.M. Sasidharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Law, Commercial Taxes), Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
24-10-2019 C.S. Riches Transports (Goods Transporters), Proprietor S. Balakrishnan & Another Versus T.M. Oosman Haji & Co., Rep.by its Managing Partner C.O.K. Faizal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 Kairali Jewelery, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Nadarsha Versus The Assistant Commissioner-Iii, Special Circle, State Goods & Service Tax Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 M/s. DLF Southern Towns Private Limited, Kakkanad, Represented by Its Assistant General Manager S. Subramanian & Another Versus The State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch), O/O. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Intelligence), Department of State Goods & Service Tax, Edappally, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-10-2019 The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, 'Poompoozhil', Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by its Assistant Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras