Stay of judgment does not negate its precedential value.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 RP NO. 395 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2025 IN WP(C)

NO.31565 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN – 110 001

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN., PIN – 682 018

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (AUDIT), AUDIT CIRCLE V, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI., PIN – 682

017

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER, AUDIT CIRCLE VI, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI., PIN – 682 017 BY ADV SHRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER:

M/S. ARYACON, PMC XVI/56, CITY ESTATE, M. C.

ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, S. SHYAM., PIN – 683 542 BY ADV. DR. K.P. PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard Sri. P.R. Sreejith, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, as well as Dr. K.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to challenge the provisions of Rule 5A (2) of the Service Tax Rules , 1994, as unconstitutional.

3. This Court, relying on the declaration of the law by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors [(2016) 91 VST 499] allowed the writ petition and set aside Exts.P2 and P3 issued by the respondents.

4. It is the submission made by Sri. P.R. Sreejith, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, that the judgment of the Delhi High Court has already been stayed by the Apex Court, when this Court rendered the judgment on 03.07.2025. However, it is a settled principle of law that merely because the judgment has been stayed by the Apex Court, the dictum laid down in the said judgment cannot be ignored. This Court also places reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and Another [2009 (4) KHC 283] in this regard.

In such circumstances, I find no merit in this is review petition, and the same would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE

PR