COLOUR SIGN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANTONY BINOY vs STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM NORTH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
COLOUR SIGN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANTONY BINOY – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM NORTH – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN, SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768), SHRI.LIJO VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P

Table of Content
1. challenges composite notice for multiple gst years. (Para 1)
2. court quashes order relying on precedents. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 order which was issued by the 1^st respondent for multiple financial years namely, 2019-20. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable as per the decision rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467]

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, I find merit in the said submission, in view of the fact that, such a finding was indeed entered into by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions referred to above.

In such circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quash

Click Here to Read the rest of this document