TESSY ANTONY, vs STATE OF KERALA,
- Court
- Kerala High Court
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 1 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
“C.R.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED RAFI,
PROPRIETOR OF SHARAFIYA,CSI COMPLEX,
BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN
SMT.V.P.SEENA DEVI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001
2 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.I,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001
3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).1710/2017, 16785/2017, 24297/2017,
24298/2017, 24326/2017, 28493/2017, 32515/2017, 33920/2017,
9667/2018, 27634/2020 AND 12501/2023, THE COURT ON 26.10.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 2 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 1710 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SOBHA LTD.,
"ANUGRAHA", 30/48, SRIPURAM, PUNKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI.V.G.VENUGOPAL.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
SHRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER WORKS CONTRACT,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 3 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 16785 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES [P] LTD
KANNIMARI POST,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD.REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI.JAYANTI VENKATA JOGA RAO.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.KUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR
SMT.G.MINI(1748)
SHRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [APPEALS]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD -679502.
2 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)
SPECIAL CIRCLE,COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD-679502.
3
THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD-679502.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 4 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 24297 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
L.SATHEEK
AKKAYILA, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM.
BY ADV SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC),
KOLLAM-691 001.
2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 5 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 24298 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S.LEKSHMAN & CO.
AKKAYILA,ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,L.SATHEEK.
BY ADV SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II (WC), KOLLAM
PIN 691 001
2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 6 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 24326 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S.FAR EAST TRADING ESTABLISHMENT
K.P.ROAD, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, ELCEY BABU.
BY ADV SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I,
KAYAMKULAM-690 502.
2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 7 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 28493 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED ALI K.V, PROPRIETOR,
M/S. MALABAR BLUE METALS, CHOORAKODE,
VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SRI.S.JAFFERALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PALAKKAD-678004.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 8 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 32515 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S. SIVASAKTHI ENGINEERING AND FABRICATORS
POOLAMPARA, WALAYAR P.O, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
P. E. SUBRAMANIAN.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SRI.S.JAFFERALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS
COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 9 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 33920 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S.AAGAZ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED
17/782, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. ABDUL JABBAR P
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SRI.S.JAFFERALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS
COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 10 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 9667 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
M/S. CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED,
CHATHAMKULAM CHAMBERS, NH 47, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.SUMESH BABU.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SMT.K.HYMAVATHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD-678004.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 11 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 27634 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SMT.TESSY ANTONY,
M/S GIBY TRADERS,40/8638,
T D ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SRI.ANTONY JONES
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIIONER (APPEALS)III,
KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682015.
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 12 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 12501 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
MANAPPURAM JEWELLERS LIMITED
RITI JEWELLERY, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680567.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
BASANTH BHASKAR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAHUL A.
SHRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
SHRI.SABU C.J
SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL
SMT.APARNA ANIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
INTELLIGENCE UNIT-I SGST DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680004
2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
SGST DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR., PIN – 680 004
SMT. HARIMA HARIHARAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).819/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 13 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
“C.R.”
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.819, 1710, 16785, 24297, 24298,
24326, 28493, 32515, 33920 of 2017,
9667 of 2018, 27634 of 2020
&
12501 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 26 day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
The applicability of a notification dated 07.04.2016 issued by
the Government, enhancing the levy of an additional court fee from
0.5% to 1% of the amount involved in the dispute, payable towards
the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, constituted under Section 76(2) of the
Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’),
is the issue required to be considered in these writ petitions.
2. The petitioners were all assessees under the Kerala Value
Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’). They are facing
proceedings initiated under the said Act which were pending before
the appellate authorities or revisional authorities at the time of filing
these writ petitions. The petitioners have been directed to pay
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 14 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
additional court fee at the enhanced rate in respect of the appeals or
revision petitions filed by them after the notification was issued.
Hence they have approached this Court raising the challenge
mentioned above.
3. The main contention urged by petitioners in all these writ
petitions is that the additional court fee enhanced from 0.5% to 1% of
the amount involved in dispute cannot apply to the assessment years
prior to the date of the impugned notification. The petitioners’ also
assert that, this Court had in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills
Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2006 (1) KLT 989], observed that though the
State was competent to levy additional court fee under Section 76(1)
of the Act, the enhanced levy will not have any retrospective
application and hence in the present instance also, the enhanced
rate must apply only from the assessment year in which the
notification was issued, i.e., 2016-17.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in
W.P.(C) No.1710 of 2017 contending that the additional court fee
prescribed under section 76 of the Act has to be paid, even in
respect of appeals preferred against the orders issued prior to the
date of the notification. According to the respondent, the fee
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 15 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
prescribed in section 76 of the Act is payable from the date of
notification to all proceedings. Respondent has pleaded that the
extended additional court fee will apply to appeals or revisions filed
after the date of notification i.e., 07.04.2016. They have also
contended that the amount collected as court fee is utilized for
providing efficient legal services for the people of the State and for
social security measures for the legal profession in the form of
Advocates Welfare Fund and Advocates Clerk Welfare Fund and
hence the levy ought not be interfered with.
5. Sri. A Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
Smt. Mini, apart from Adv. Krishna, Adv. K .N Sreekumaran,
Adv. S.Anil Kumar, Adv. N.Muraleedharan Nair and Adv. Rahul A.,
the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, submitted that the
levy of enhanced court fee would amount to an impairment of the
vested right of appeal of the petitioners. Relying upon the decisions
in State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. and
Another [AIR 1960 SC 980] , Procurator, R.G. Diocese, Calicut v.
State of Kerala [2003 (1) KLT 618] as well as the judgment in Ismail
v. State of Kerala [2005 KHC 1169], it was contended that the
notification enhancing the fee cannot apply to the assessment
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 16 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
periods before it was notified and can have application only from the
assessment year when it was notified.
6. Adv. Harima Hariharan, the learned Government Pleader on
the other hand, submitted that the enhanced court fee applies in all
these cases, as the appeals or revision petitions were filed
subsequent to the notification. Relying upon the decision in
K.Raveendranathan Nair and Another v. Commissioner of
Income Tax and Others [(2017) 9 SCC 355], it was contended that
the relevant date for determining the court fee payable, would be the
date on which the particular lis commenced. The learned
Government Pleader argued that the order under challenge before
the appellate or revisional authorities in relation to the petitioners
were all issued after the date of notification and hence they are
bound to pay the additional court at the enhanced rate. Even
otherwise, it was contended that the levy was all along in existence
and only the rates have been enhanced and therefore, the principle
laid down in the decision in Ismail (supra) had no application.
7. The issue that requires to be considered is thus based on
the notification dated 07.04.2016, which reads as below:
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 17 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Law (G) Department
NOTIFICATION
G. O. (P) No. 5/2016/Law.
Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 7th April, 2016
25th Meenam, 1191.
“S.R.O. No. 315/2016 .-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1959 (10 of 1960) and in supersession of the notification issued
th
under G. O. (P) No. 116/2002/Law dated 5 April, 2002 and
published as S.R.O. No. 226/2002 in the Kerala Gazette
th
Extraordinary No. 420 dated 5 April, 2002, the Government of
Kerala hereby authorise the levy by the Civil Courts, the tribunals and
appellate authorities constituted by or under any special or local law,
an additional court fee in respect of each original suits, original
petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions at the rate of 1%
of the amount involved in the dispute, in cases where it is capable of
valuation and in other cases at the rate of Rupees one hundred in
each such case. The amount so collected shall be credited to the
Kerala Legal Benefit Fund constituted under sub-section (2) of
section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
The notification shall be deemed to have come into force on
st
and from the 1 day of April, 2016.
By order of the Governor,
(Name),
Law Secretary.
Explanatory Note
(This does not form part of the notification, but is intended to indicate
its general purport.)
As per sub-section (1) of section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 as amended by the Kerala Finance Bill,
2016 the Government is empowered to levy additional court fee in
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 18 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions
to tribunals or appellate authorities and original suits in Civil Courts,
at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount in the dispute in
cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at the rate
not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original suit, original
petition, original application, appeal or revision. The Government
have decided to levy an additional court fee at the rate of 1% in
respect of each original suits, original petitions, original applications,
appeals or revisions of the amount involved in the dispute, in cases
where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at the rate of
Rupees one hundred in each such case.
The notification is intended to achieve the above object.”
BACKGROUND.
8. Before referring to the legal issues raised, a brief
reference to the background of the levy of additional court fee
towards Legal Benefit Fund is necessary. From the year 1962, a
provision for the constitution of a legal benefit fund by the
Government has been in existence as per section 76 of the Act. The
fund was intended to be collected through levy of additional court fee.
Despite the existence of such a provision, the rules in that regard
were framed by the Government under Section 76(4) of the Act only
in the year 1991. Much later, in the year 2002, the Kerala Legal
Benefit Fund Trust Committee was formed under Section 76(2) of the
Act. Pursuant to its formation, a notification was issued directing
collection of additional court fee at specified rates with effect from
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 19 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
05.04.2002. Thus every appeal, or revision, filed before the Tribunals
or Appellate/Revisional Authorities, other than in civil courts and
criminal courts in the State, had to carry a stamp for the value of the
additional court fee as prescribed in the Government Order S.R.O.
No.225/2002.
9. Initially, the aforementioned levy was fixed at 0.5% of the
amount involved in the dispute wherever it was capable of valuation
or otherwise Rs.50/-. Though the limit fixed by statute was 1% of the
amount involved in the dispute or Rs.100/-, as the case may be, the
Government initially fixed it as 0.5% of the value of the dispute and in
other cases at Rs.50/-.
10. When the aforesaid levy was introduced through
notifications issued by the Government in 2002, challenges were
raised including the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Act.
However, a learned Single Judge of this Court had, in Ismail (supra)
upheld the validity of the provision and declared that the additional
court fee liability is payable only for appeals or revisions filed in
respect of any orders issued from the assessment year in which the
notification was issued, i.e., 2002-03 onwards. Though the State
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 20 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
Government challenged the said judgment, a Division Bench of this
Court affirmed it in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.
(supra).
11. In the meantime, the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Trust
Committee filed a writ appeal after obtaining leave, questioning the
finding regarding the levy of additional court fee only from the year
2002-03 onwards, and contended that the said issue had not been
considered by the Division Bench in Chackolas Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench in Kerala Legal
Benefit Fund Trustee Committee v. Cheeran Structurals (M/s.)
and Others [2012 (1) KLT 430] considered the legal implication of
the levy and held, that the additional court fee payable towards legal
benefit fund is payable at the rate prescribed under the Government
Order, to every appeal or revision filed on or after 05.04.2002,
irrespective of the assessment year to which it relates. The following
observations are relevant:
“........ The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the above judgments are not directly on the point raised by the
appellants i.e. appellants' entitlement to collect Legal Benefit Fund
in the form of additional court - fee under S.76(1) read with the
Notification issued by the government for any appeal or revision
filed after 05/04/2002 (irrespective of) the assessment year to
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 21 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
which the appeal or revision relates. We find force in the contention
of the appellants because neither the Section nor the Government
Orders provide for collection of Legal Benefit Fund by way of
additional court-fee with reference to any assessment year. On the
other hand, what is provided is levy and collection of Legal Benefit
Fund for any appeal or revision filed before any statutory authority
or Tribunal other than civil and Criminal Courts. Since levy is
statutorily authorised, it is upto the Government while issuing the
order to fix the effective date of levy and collection which in this
case is the date of order i.e. 05/04/2002. So much so, going by the
orders of the Government and the operative provisions of the
statute, we feel every appeal or revision filed on or after
05/04/2002 irrespective of the assessment year to which it relates,
Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court - fee is payable at
the rates prescribed under the Government Orders. However, we
notice that in the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above and
relied on by the learned Single Judge which is in State of Bombay
v. Supreme General Films Exchange it is held as follows:
"It is thus clear that in a long line of decisions approved
by this Court and at least in one given by this Court, it
has been held that an impairment of the right of appeal
by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more
onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only; it
impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment
which does so is not retrospective unless it says so
expressly or by necessary intendment."
Going by the above decision of the Supreme Court, we feel the
judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be
erroneous or unsustainable even though it has in effect taken away
the benefit to the appellants from the effective date given by the
Government Orders. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals filed by
the appellants.”
12. A similar issue, as was considered in the decisions in
Ismail (supra), Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra)
and Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Trustee Committee (supra) has
arisen again. The Government has, by the notification dated
07.04.2016, enhanced the rate of additional court fee from 0.5% to
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 22 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
1% payable towards the Legal Benefit Fund. The question to be
determined in the present batch of writ petitions is the date from
which the enhanced rate of additional court fee becomes payable. Is
it to be determined with reference to the assessment year in question
or is it the date of the assessment order, or is it the date of coming
into force of the notification? By the principles of judicial precedents,
this Court could have followed the decisions of this Court mentioned
in this paragraph. However, the very same principle of judicial
precedent was canvassed by the learned Government Pleader by
referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in
K.Raveendranathan Nair (supra), to adopt a different view. Hence
the following discussion is essential.
DISCUSSION .
13. In K.Raveendranathan Nair (supra), the issue arose after
the amendment of section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
court fee became payable for appeals and revisions under the
Income Tax Act as per section 52A of the Act, introduced with effect
from 06.03.2003. After referring to the decisions in Hoosein Kasam
Dada (India) Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [AIR
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 23 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
1953 SC 221] and Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. (supra),
it was held that appeal provisions applicable in a tax matter for
assessees would be that existing as on the date of assessment and
not that applicable during the assessment period, while for the
revenue, it would be the one as on the date the disputed demand is
negatived by the appellate authority. In coming to such a conclusion,
the Court relied upon a Constitution Bench decision in Hardeodas
Jagannath v. State of Assam and Others [AIR 1970 SC 724].
14. The earliest decision having a bearing is the Division Bench
judgment in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Limited (supra), which
held that, when a lis commences, all rights get crystallised and no
clog upon a likely appeal can be put, unless the law was made
retrospective, either expressly or by clear implication. The aforesaid
decision was followed by the three Bench decision in Supreme
General Films Exchange Ltd. (supra). In the said decision, the
Supreme Court held, as noted earlier, that, an impairment of the right
of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more
onerous condition is not a matter of procedure, but it impairs or
imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so, is not
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 24 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
retrospective, unless it says so expressly or by necessary
intendment. The Constitution Bench decision in Garikapati Veeraya
v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Others [AIR 1957 SC 540] was also
relied upon for the above proposition. It is also appropriate to
observe that in another Constitution Bench judgment in Vitthalbhai
Naranbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh
(AIR 1967 SC 344), the observations in Hoosein Kasam Dada
(India) Limited (supra) was referred to and approved, though on
facts, the Court could not identify whether the lis commenced prior to
the amendment or not.
15. Thus, this Court is left with the predicament of deciding this
lis, in the background of a cleavage of opinion discernible from the
different decisions of the Supreme Court. A reading of the above
referred decisions reveal that, the approval by the Constitution Bench
in Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel (supra) of the principles laid down in
Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Limited (supra) was not noted by the
subsequent Constitution Bench in Hardeodas Jagannath (supra) .
16. While dealing with a situation where divergent views of
Benches of co-equal strength are rendered by the Supreme Court,
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 25 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
the options available with a High Court are: (i) if there are two
irreconcilable decisions and the subsequent decision has not
considered the earlier decision, the subsequent decision would be
per incuriam, (ii) if the subsequent decision had noted, considered
and explained the earlier decision, then the High Court must follow
the subsequent decision, and (iii) if the earlier decision was noted in
the subsequent decision but not explained, the High Court can
reconcile the two conflicting decisions. In a recent decision in IVECO
Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya
and Another [(2024) 2 SCC 86], it has been observed as follows:
".......In such a scenario, when there are decisions of this Court
not expressing views in sync with each other, the first course to
be adopted is to ascertain which is the decision that has been
rendered by a larger Bench. Obviously, inter se decisions of this
Court, a decision of a Constitution Bench would be binding on
the Benches of lesser strength. None of the decisions that we
have considered is rendered by a Constitution Bench. However,
a sole judgment rendered by a Bench of 4 (four) Hon'ble Judges
and 3 (three) decisions rendered by the Benches comprised of
3 (three) Hon'ble Judges are there, which call for deference.
Ordinarily, the decision of a larger Bench has to be preferred
unless of course a Bench of lesser strength doubts an earlier
view, formulates the point for answer and refers the matter for
further consideration by a larger Bench in accordance with law.
If, however, the decisions taking divergent views are rendered
by Benches of co-equal strength, the next course to be adopted
is to attempt to reconcile the views that appear to be divergent
and to explain those contrary decisions by assuming, to the
extent possible, that they applied to different facts. The other
course available is to look at whether the previous decision has
been noticed, considered and explained in the subsequent
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 26 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
decision; if not, the earlier decision continues to remain binding
whereas if the answer is in the affirmative, the subsequent
decision becomes the binding decision. We add a caveat that if
the subsequent Bench, instead of deciding the matter before it
finally upon consideration of the decision of the earlier Bench,
formulates the point of difference and makes a reference for a
decision by a larger Bench, it is the former decision that
continues to govern the field so long the larger Bench does not
decide the reference." (emphasis supplied).
17. In view of the above principle, it needs no reiteration that
when a previous decision has not been noticed or considered, the
earlier decision continues to remain binding. Hence, the prior
Constitution Bench judgment in Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel (supra)
approving the principles laid down in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India)
Limited (supra) remains binding. Viewed in the above perspective,
the enhanced court fee is applicable only to the cases where lis
commenced after the effective date of notification i.e. 01.04.2016.
18. The above conclusion leads to the question regarding
when the lis commenced in each of these cases. To appreciate the
said question, the following observations in Hoosein Kasam Dada
(India) Limited (supra) is relevant:
“32.................Whenever there is a proposition by one party and
an opposition to that proposition by another a “lis” arises. It may
be conceded, though not deciding it, that when the assessee files
his return a “lis” may not immediately arise, for under Section
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 27 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
11(1) the authority may accept the return as correct and
complete. But if the authority is not satisfied as to the correctness
of the return and calls for evidence, surely a controversy arises
involving a proposition by the assessee and an opposition by the
State. The circumstance that the authority who raises the dispute
is himself the judge can make no difference for the authority
raises the dispute in the interest of the State and in so acting only
represents the State.
33. It will appear from the dates given above that in this case the
“lis” in the sense explained above arose before the date of
amendment of the session. Further, even if the “lis” is to be taken
as arising only on the date of assessment, there was a possibility
of such a “lis” arising as soon as proceedings started with the
filing of the return or, at any rate, when the authority call for
evidence and started the hearing and the right of appeal must be
taken to have been in existence even at those dates. For the
purposes of the accrual of the right of appeal the critical and
relevant date is the date of initiation of proceedings and not the
decision itself.” (emphasis supplied)
19. Thus, the lis, in matters of taxation, commences when the
taxing authority being not satisfied with the correctness of the return
filed by the assessee, calls for materials or evidence to justify the
claim of the assessee. If a notice has been issued by the assessing
officer pursuant to the return filed by the assessee, a lis can be held
to have commenced and the right of appeal, including the obligation
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 28 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
to pay the court fee in the appeal, as existing on that date when the
lis commenced, becomes vested right. Such a right can be taken
away only by an express stipulation or by necessary intendment. A
reading of the notification extracted in this judgement, does not
indicate any retrospective stipulation either expressly or by
necessary intendment and the notification came into effect from
01.04.2016. Hence for all appeals or revision petitions filed where the
lis commenced after 01.04.2016, the enhanced rate of court fee is
payable.
20. In view of the above legal propositions, each of the individual
cases in this batch of writ petitions are dealt with, as below:
W.P.(C) No. 819/2017
The assessment relates to the year 2015-16. The petitioner
has challenged an order of penalty dated 20.09.2016 before the
Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam. The notice under section 67 of
KVAT Act was issued on 07.07.2016. Hence the lis commenced after
the notification and the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced rate of
court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 29 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 1710/2017
The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 assessment order dated
20.05.2016, before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals),
Thiruvananthapuram. The assessment relates to the year 2013-14
and the pre-assessment notice was issued, as evident from Ext.P3
assessment order, on 12.11.2015. Hence the lis commenced before
the notification, and the petitioner is not liable to pay the enhanced
rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No. 16785/2017
The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 assessment order dated
29.11.2016, relating to the year 2012-13 by filing Ext.P2 appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The pre-assessment
notice was issued, as evident from Ext.P1 assessment order, on
26.10.2015. Hence the lis commenced before the notification and the
petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 30 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 24297/2017
The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 assessment order dated
02.05.2014 relating to the year 2010-11 by filing an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam. The Appellate Authority
allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the extent to which the
appeal was rejected, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal. Since Ext.P1 assessment order was issued
on 02.05.2014, the lis commenced before the notification, and the
petitioner is not liable to pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No. 24298/2017
The petitioner has challenged an assessment order dated
16.07.2013 relating to the year 2010-11 by filing an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam. The Appellate Authority
allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the extent to which the
appeal was rejected, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal. Since Ext.P1 assessment order was issued
on 16.07.2013, the lis commenced before the notification and the
petitioner is not liable to pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 31 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 24326/2017
The petitioner had challenged an assessment order dated
20-03-2014 relating to the year 2008-09 by filing an appeal before
the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam. The Appellate
Authority dismissed the appeal. Challenging the dismissal of the
appeal, petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal. Since Ext.P1 assessment order was issued on 20.03.2014,
the lis commenced before the notification and hence the petitioner is
not liable to pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No. 28493/2017
Though the issue pending before the Appellate Tribunal relates
to the assessment year 2009-10 to 2013-14, nowhere in the writ
petition is there any pleading to indicate the date of assessment
order or the date of pre-assessment notice. In the absence of any
material to indicate the date of commencement of lis, it is for the
Appellate Tribunal before whom the appeals were filed, to identify
such a date and also as to whether petitioner is required to pay the
enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 32 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 32515/2017
Though the issue pending before the Deputy Commissioner
(Appeals), Palakkad relates to the assessment year 2009-10 to
2013-14, there is no pleading or any material to indicate the date of
assessment order or the date of pre-assessment notice. In the
absence of any material to indicate the date of commencement of lis,
it is for the Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was filed, to
identify such dates and also as to whether petitioner is required to
pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No. 33920/2017
Though the issue pending before the Deputy Commissioner
(Appeals), Palakkad relates to the assessment year 2012-13 to
2014-2015, there is no pleading or any material to indicate the date
of assessment orders or the date of pre-assessment notices. In the
absence of any material to indicate the date of commencement of lis,
it is for the Appellate Authority before whom the appeals were filed,
to identify such a date and also as to whether petitioner is required to
pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 33 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 9667/2018
Though the issue relates to the assessment years 2009-10 to
2012-13, appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal. There is
no pleading or any material to indicate the date of assessment orders
or the date of pre-assessment notices. In the absence of any material
to indicate the date of commencement of lis, it is for the Appellate
Tribunal before whom the appeals were filed, to identify such a date
and also as to whether petitioner is required to pay the enhanced
rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No. 27634/2020
The issue pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals),
Ernakulam relates to the assessment year 2012-13. However, there
is no pleading or any material to indicate the date of assessment
order or the date of pre-assessment notice. In the absence of any
material to indicate the date of commencement of lis, it for the
Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was filed, to identify
such a date and also as to whether petitioner is required to pay the
enhanced rate of court fee.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 34 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
W.P.(C) No. 12501/2023
A penalty order relating to the assessment year 2014-15 is the
subject matter of appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals),
Thrissur. Though a shop inspection was conducted on 23.03.2015,
the books of account were called for only on 20.08.2018. Hence, the
lis commenced after the date of notification and the petitioner is
required to pay the enhanced rate of court fee.
Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
SMF
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 35 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O. NO.315/2016 DATED
7.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SRO 226/2002 DATED 5.4.2002
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER BEARING
NO.ISK I CR-09/206-17 DATED 20.9.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 22.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED IN EXHIBIT P4
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 22.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY
FILED IN EXHIBIT P4 BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 22.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EARLY
HEARING FILED IN EXHIBIT P4 BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT ON 22.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.RP 83 &
84/16-17 DATED 24.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.1.2017
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER NO.RP
83/16-17 DATED 4.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 36 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1710 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.NO.315/2016 DATED
07.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF SRO 226/2002 DATED
05.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
20.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
EXT.P3 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(A). TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY
FILED IN EXT.P4 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT P4(B). TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EARLY
HEARING OF APPEAL FILED IN EXT.P4
APPEAL.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.10.2016
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.9/2016/LAW
(S.R.O) NO.578/2016) DATED 29.08.2016.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 37 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 16785 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DATED
29/11/2016
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 17.3.2017
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMNET OF
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF 20% TAX AMOUNT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO 315 OF
2016 DATED 7/4/2016.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 38 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24297 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11
DATED 02.05.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM DATED
15.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
16.02.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTIFICATION SRO 315/16 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2016.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 39 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24298 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11
DATED 16.07.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY.
COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), KOLLAM DATED
18.08.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
22.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2017.
Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTIFICATION SRO 315/16 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2016.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 40 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24326 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09
DATED 20-03-2014.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM DATED
09-11-2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24-01-
2017.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 03-03-2017.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTIFICATION SRO 315/16 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-04-2016.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.39633/16 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 30-03-2017.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.(TAX)NO.2/17 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13-06-2017
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 41 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 28493 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF S.R.O NO.315/2016 DATED
7.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF S.R.O. NO. 226/2002 DATED
5.4.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A
(VAT)NO.174/2017
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A
(VAT) NO.175/2017 DATED 9.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A
(VAT) NO.176/2017 DATED 9.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A
(VAT) NO.177/2017 DATED 9.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A
(VAT) NO.178/2017 DATED 9.8.2017.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 42 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32515 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O NO. 315/2016 DATED
07.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O. NO.226/2002 DATED
05.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN KVATA
NO.324/2017 DATED 14.09.2017.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 43 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 33920 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.NO.315/2016 DATED
7/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.NO.226/2002 DATED
5/4/2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN KVATA.
NOS.616, 615 & 614/2017 DATED 19/9/2017
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 44 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 9667 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.NO.315/2016 DATED
07.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.NO.226/2002 DATED
05.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A.
(VAT) NO.39/2018 DATED 08.02.2018.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A.
(VAT) NO.40/2018 DATED 08.02.2018.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A.
(VAT) NO.41/2018 DATED 08.02.2018
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE IN T.A.
(VAT) NO.42/2018 DATED 08.02.2018.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO. 9/2016/LAW
(S.R.ON.578/2016) DATED 29.08.2016.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 45 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 27634 OF 2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SRO NO.315/2016 DATED
07.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SRO NO.226/2002 DATED
05.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC
NO.19457/2020 DATED 22.09.2020.
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2017 & Conn. Cases -: 46 :-
CNR : KLHC010487662017
2026:KER:81906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12501 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O. NO. 315/2016 DATED
07-04-2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
Exhibit2 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM SRO
226/2002 DATED 05-04-2002 NOTIFICATION,
AS EXTRACTED IN THE JUDGMENT IN ISMAIL
VS. STATE OF KERALA [(2006) 144 STC 476
(KER)] OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 10-02-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR
THE YEAR 2014-15.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AGAINST EXT-P3 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 17-01-
2017 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO.1710 OF 2017.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-06-
2017 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN O.P.(TAX)
NO.2 OF 2017.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-
2021 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C)
NO. 19732 OF 2021.
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-
2021 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C)
NO. 19740 OF 2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND DATED 28-
02-2023 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-03-2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08-03-2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-03-2023
ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.