{"id":149467,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-30T19:09:56","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T13:39:56","slug":"ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST.Rev..No. 136 of 2005()\n\n\n1. M\/S. YESES INTERNATIONAL BHARATH\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :23\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n            H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J.\n\n                 -------------------------------------\n                 S.T.Rev. Nos.136 and 150 of 2005\n                 ------------------------------------\n         Dated this, the 23rd day of September, 2008\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. DATTU, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
             Both these revision petitions pertain to the assessment year<\/p>\n
1996-97.\n<\/p>\n
             2. S.T.Rev. No.136\/2005 is filed questioning the correctness<\/p>\n
or otherwise of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in<\/p>\n
T.A. No.694 of 2001 dated 16.7.2004 under the provisions of the Central<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act and S.T.Rev. No.150 of 2005 is filed questioning the orders<\/p>\n
passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.693 of 2001 dated 16.7.2004<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.<\/p>\n
             3. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act, for short) and Central<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act, 1965 (the CST Act, for short). The petitioner is a dealer in<\/p>\n
superior kerosene oil having branch offices at Ernakulam and Pondicherry.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is borne on the files of the Assistant Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Assessment), Special Circle-III, Ernakulam. Petitioner used to import<\/p>\n
superior kerosene oil from abroad under the import licence granted by<\/p>\n
Government of India. The import is done through Madras and Kochi<\/p>\n
Ports.    During the assessment year 1996-97, petitioner imported<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005             – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     5616.454 KLs of Kerosene through Kochi port and out of which<\/p>\n
     1595.001 KLs were sold locally and 4728 KLs were transported to<\/p>\n
     Pondicherry by way of branch transfer is the claim of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
                   4. The Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Wing of the<\/p>\n
     Department had inspected the business premises of the petitioner on<\/p>\n
     5.7.1996 and 8.10.1996 and had noticed certain discrepancies in the books<\/p>\n
     of account maintained by the dealer and pointing out those omissions and<\/p>\n
     commissions       had    prepared    shop     inspection    reports,    SIR<\/p>\n
     No.190472\/5.7.1996 and SIR No.33051\/8.10.1996 and the same had been<\/p>\n
     served on the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
                   5. Petitioner had filed its annual returns both under KGST<\/p>\n
     Act and CST Act for the assessment year 1996-97. In the returns filed for<\/p>\n
     the purpose of KGST assessments, the assessee had declared the total and<\/p>\n
     taxable turnover of Rs.474,85.047 and Rs.129,16,407 respectively. In the<\/p>\n
     returns filed for the purpose of CST assessment, the assessee had claimed<\/p>\n
     inter-State stock transfer of 4728.000 KLs of superior kerosene oil for<\/p>\n
     Rs.345,68,640\/-. The returns filed both under KGST Act and the CST Act<\/p>\n
     came to be rejected by the assessing authority, in view of the orders passed<\/p>\n
     by the Intelligence Officer under Section 45A of the KGST Act, pursuant<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005              – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     to shop inspection reports dated 5.7.1996 and 8.10.1996 respectively.<\/p>\n
                  6.   The assessing authority after rejecting the books of<\/p>\n
     accounts and the annual returns filed by the assessee and literally<\/p>\n
     incorporating the findings and conclusions reached by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
     Officer while passing the order under Section 45A of KGST Act for the<\/p>\n
     purpose of imposing penalty for the offence said to have been committed<\/p>\n
     under that provision, had issued proposition notice, proposing to reject the<\/p>\n
     returns and complete the assessments by resorting to best judgment<\/p>\n
     assessment. Though the notice came to be served on the assessee, for the<\/p>\n
     reasons best known to it, did not choose to file any objections to the<\/p>\n
     proposal made in the pre-assessment notice.\n<\/p>\n
                  7. The assessing authority has completed the best judgment<\/p>\n
     assessment both under KGST and CST Acts by merely incorporating the<\/p>\n
     findings and conclusions reached by the Intelligence Officer while passing<\/p>\n
     the order levying penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The order<\/p>\n
     of best judgment assessment passed by the assessing authority is extracted<\/p>\n
     in order to appreciate the stand of the assessee’s learned counsel<\/p>\n
     Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen. The same is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “I have independently verified the records and<\/p>\n
               found that the defects noticed are still exists.<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005               – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      Departmental delivery notes recovered by the<\/p>\n
              intelligence wing not produced for my verification.<\/p>\n
              The total turnover as per monthly returns conceded as<\/p>\n
              Rs.47659047\/- whereas as per accounts it is conceded<\/p>\n
              as    Rs.474,85,047.       The    difference  comes    to<\/p>\n
              Rs.1,74,000\/- This is not explained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      In view of the above observations, it is proposed<\/p>\n
              to reject the return and accounts and finalise the<\/p>\n
              assessment for 1996-97 to the best of judgment.”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   8. This is in so far as KGST assessment is concerned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   9. The CST assessment completed by the assessing authority<\/p>\n
     is in no way better than KGST Act. It is still worse. In the best judgment<\/p>\n
     assessment order passed, the assessing authority once again merely<\/p>\n
     incorporates the reasoning of the intelligence officer for levying penalty<\/p>\n
     under Section 45A of KGST Act and then proceeds to observe:<\/p>\n
                      “The    above     said    proposals  were    duly<\/p>\n
              communicated to the assessee as per this officer<\/p>\n
              pre-assesssment notice dated 20.10.2000 and invited<\/p>\n
              objections if any. The assessee has received the notice<\/p>\n
              on 9.11.2000, but not utilised the opportunity afforded<\/p>\n
              till date. The assessee has neither responded nor filed<\/p>\n
              objections. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee<\/p>\n
              has no objection against the proposal.             In the<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005              – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
              circumstances the proposal are confirmed and the<\/p>\n
              assessment order under CST           for 1996-97 stands<\/p>\n
              completed as already proposed.”\n<\/p>\n
                  10. By the aforesaid best judgment assessment orders, the<\/p>\n
     assessing authority had made huge additions to the conceded taxable<\/p>\n
     turnover and also has denied the claim of branch transfers made by the<\/p>\n
     assessee and has treated the entire turnover as inter-State sales.<\/p>\n
                  11. In the first appeals filed, the first appellate authority has<\/p>\n
     not made any improvement in the order passed by the assessing authority.<\/p>\n
     A perusal of the orders passed would only indicate that he has merely<\/p>\n
     confirmed the improper order passed by the assessing authority.<\/p>\n
                  12. In the second appeals filed by the assessee before the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.693\/2001 and T.A.No.694\/2001, the<\/p>\n
     Tribunal by its common order dated 16.7.2004 has adopted the ‘cut and<\/p>\n
     paste’ concept and has sustained the orders passed by the authorities under<\/p>\n
     the Act. The conclusion and the findings of the Tribunal is as follows:<\/p>\n
                     “In view of the above said observations, the<\/p>\n
              assessing authority rejected the return and accounts and<\/p>\n
              assessed the differential turnover of Rs.1,74,000\/- as per<\/p>\n
              defect noticed in para 5 under K.G.S.T. and turnover of<\/p>\n
              Rs.13,90,41,240\/- under C.S.T..           In appeal, the<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005           – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
             assessments were confirmed.        It is a fact that the<\/p>\n
             assessee has not replied to pre-assessment notice even<\/p>\n
             though the assessee has received the notice on<\/p>\n
             9.11.2000. The appellant has not maintained books of<\/p>\n
             accounts for the entire transactions of Cochin Office as<\/p>\n
             evidenced from the records seized at the time of<\/p>\n
             inspection and the statement given by the proprietor<\/p>\n
             when departmental officers visited the office at Madras.<\/p>\n
             At the time of inspection of branch office at Kochi, the<\/p>\n
             inspecting officers recovered used and unused invoices<\/p>\n
             relating to M\/s. Fluka Organics, Madras. The above<\/p>\n
             firm has no business place in Kerala. The appellant has<\/p>\n
             received the Delivery Notes from the assessing authority<\/p>\n
             during the year 1996-97, but the appellant has not<\/p>\n
             furnished the same for verification before the authorities<\/p>\n
             below or before this Tribunal. The assessing authority<\/p>\n
             has alleged that the appellants have effected interstate<\/p>\n
             sales of Kerosene direct from Kerala and as per<\/p>\n
             accounts the appellant had no interstate sales.      The<\/p>\n
             entire quantity other than sold locally were shown as<\/p>\n
             stock transfer to Pondicherry. Verification of registers<\/p>\n
             maintained at Border Check Post at Pondicherry<\/p>\n
             revealed that no vehicle with kerosene passed through<\/p>\n
             Check posts to Pondicherry as claimed by the appellant.<\/p>\n
             Further enquiry made by the Departmental Officers to<\/p>\n
             the branch office at Pondicherry also revealed that they<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005            – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
             have no storage facility to keep huge stock of Kerosene.<\/p>\n
             Further deposition of the driver of the lorry that they<\/p>\n
             have transported consignment from Kochi Office sold at<\/p>\n
             Coimbatore and nearby places. This fact is evidenced<\/p>\n
             from the copy of the rent receipts paid by the appellant<\/p>\n
             for the transport of Kerosene from Kochi to Coimbatore.<\/p>\n
             The above findings of the assessing authority is not<\/p>\n
             rebutted by the appellant.      The appellant has not<\/p>\n
             produced the transporting copy of the delivery note<\/p>\n
             which is under the custody of the appellant and the stock<\/p>\n
             transfer to Pondicherry could be established by the<\/p>\n
             transporting copy of the Departmental Delivery Note.<\/p>\n
             The records seized at the time of inspection evidences<\/p>\n
             that      the  appellant    has   effected  unaccounted<\/p>\n
             transactions under the guise of stock transfer.<\/p>\n
             Considering the quantum of suppression detected by the<\/p>\n
             Intelligence Wing which comes to Rs.3,45,68,640\/- we<\/p>\n
             are of the view that the addition made by the assessing<\/p>\n
             authority and sustained by the first appellate authority<\/p>\n
             and levy of tax on the above amount under C.S.T. is fair<\/p>\n
             and reasonable and therefore we confirm the decision of<\/p>\n
             the authorities below in this case. Since the difference<\/p>\n
             in the total turnover as per monthly return and total<\/p>\n
             turnover conceded as per accounts amounts to<\/p>\n
             Rs.1,74,000\/- has not been properly explained by the<\/p>\n
             appellant, the levy of tax on Rs.1,74,000\/- under KGST<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005             – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
              Act is also confirmed”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   13. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by<\/p>\n
     the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has presented these revision petitions<\/p>\n
     under Section 41 of the KGST Act and in that has framed the following<\/p>\n
     questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are:-<\/p>\n
                      1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances<\/p>\n
               of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in<\/p>\n
               confirming the denial of branch transfer discarding the<\/p>\n
               fact that the goods reached Pondicherry and the same<\/p>\n
               were assessed at Pondicherry as evidenced by Annexure<\/p>\n
               D order?      2.   Whether on the facts and in the<\/p>\n
               circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal has<\/p>\n
               erred in law in confirming the addition made by the<\/p>\n
               Assessing Authority when the said authority has no case<\/p>\n
               that the petitioner has made any unaccounted purchase<\/p>\n
               and no pattern of suppression is also established?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances<\/p>\n
               of the case the addition sustained by the Appellate<\/p>\n
               Tribunal is correct and has any nexus to the alleged<\/p>\n
               irregularities?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   14. The learned counsel Sri.Shamsudheen for the assessee<\/p>\n
     would contend, that, the assessing authority merely relying on the findings<\/p>\n
     of the Intelligence Officer while passing the order under Section 45A of<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005                – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     the KGST Act could not have rejected the annual returns filed by the<\/p>\n
     assessee.  By this, what the learned counsel intends to convey is, an<\/p>\n
     estimation by best judgment may take into account an element of guess<\/p>\n
     work, but it is still a ‘judgment’ and hence must have some basis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   14. Sri.Mohammed Rafiq, learned Government Advocate<\/p>\n
     would tell us, that, since the assessee did not have file any ‘Objections’ to<\/p>\n
     the proposal made in the pre-assessment notice, the assessing authority had<\/p>\n
     no other option but to confirm the proposal made and therefore, at this<\/p>\n
     belated stage, the assessee can neither blame nor take any exception to the<\/p>\n
     best judgment assessment orders passed. The learned counsel supports his<\/p>\n
     submission by referring to a case law of this court – Abdul Rasheed vs.<\/p>\n
     State of Kerala,<\/a> reported in ILR 1997(1) Page 77.\n<\/p>\n
                   15. It is well settled that the assessing officer is a quasi<\/p>\n
     judicial authority.       He exercises his quasi judicial functions while<\/p>\n
     completing the assessment and qualifying the tax liability of an assessee<\/p>\n
     under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                   16. Tax incidence is the ultimate product of assessment. The<\/p>\n
     word “assessment” is a term of varying import. The word is sometimes<\/p>\n
     used to mean the computation of the amount of tax and at other times to<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005               – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     mean the whole procedure laid down for imposing the liability on tax<\/p>\n
     payer. The term ‘assessment’ used in the Act comprises the provisions<\/p>\n
     relating to the subject matter of taxation, rate of tax, basis at which the<\/p>\n
     quantum of tax is to be arrived at, the exemptions to be given and the<\/p>\n
     authorities for enforcing tax liability. The procedure for assessment should<\/p>\n
     comply with the rules of natural justice and if not it would be unreasonable<\/p>\n
     restriction violating both Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
     Even in the case of best judgment assessment, the assessee should be<\/p>\n
     offered an opportunity to explain every material gathered and intended to<\/p>\n
     be used against him by the authority.\n<\/p>\n
                   17. Taxing statutes generally authorise imposition of penalty<\/p>\n
     for delay in filing returns, concealment of tax liability, default in payment<\/p>\n
     of tax, contravention of mandatory provisions etc. The proceedings for<\/p>\n
     imposition of penalty are quasi criminal in nature. This power of imposing<\/p>\n
     penalty is only discretionary and the penalty shall not be ordinarily<\/p>\n
     imposed unless the person\/dealer has acted deliberately in defiance of law<\/p>\n
     or guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious<\/p>\n
     disregard of his obligation. Even if the statute prescribes a minimum<\/p>\n
     penalty the authority will not be justified in imposing it, if the breach was<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005              – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     technical or venial or was the result of bonafide belief. Section 45A of the<\/p>\n
     Act provides for imposition of penalties on contumacious or fraudulent<\/p>\n
     assessees. The various grounds for penalties are fully enumerated there.<\/p>\n
     The object of the provision is to provide a stimulant to a dealer to observe<\/p>\n
     the mandate of the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                   18. Tax and penalty like tax and interest are distinct and<\/p>\n
     different concepts under tax laws. What is good for levying penalty may<\/p>\n
     not be good for the purpose of passing an order of assessment, re-<\/p>\n
     assessment or the best judgment assessment. We hasten to add, that, the<\/p>\n
     assessing authority can certainly make use of the information collected by<\/p>\n
     the intelligence officer of the department as a piece of evidence while<\/p>\n
     completing regular or best judgment assessment, but at any rate, that<\/p>\n
     cannot be the sole basis on which the entire assessment could be made.<\/p>\n
     The assessing authority has to make independent verification of the<\/p>\n
     particulars furnished by the dealer in the annual returns filed. In the course<\/p>\n
     of such enquiry, if for any reason, the assessee does not cooperate with the<\/p>\n
     assessing authority, he can definitely draw adverse inference against the<\/p>\n
     assessee. On conclusion of the enquiry, he has to record a definite finding<\/p>\n
     one way or the other.\n<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005                – 12 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                   19. In the instant case, what has been done by the assessing<\/p>\n
     authority is that after rejecting the annual returns filed by the assessee, has<\/p>\n
     issued the pre-assessment notice, incorporating verbatim the findings and<\/p>\n
     the conclusion reached by the intelligence officer of the department while<\/p>\n
     passing the order imposing the penalty under Section 45A of the Act.<\/p>\n
     Since there was no response from the assessee to the proposal made, he has<\/p>\n
     confirmed the proposal made in the pre-assessment notice, while<\/p>\n
     completing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year in question<\/p>\n
     both under KGST and CST Acts. The assessment order so passed is only<\/p>\n
     yet another affirmation or confirmation or endorsement of the penalty<\/p>\n
     order passed by the intelligence officer, except an addition made towards<\/p>\n
     the probable suppression during the assessment year in question. This is<\/p>\n
     not what is expected of the assessing authority, even while completing the<\/p>\n
     assessment proceedings by resorting to best judgment assessment. The<\/p>\n
     order of assessment should definitely indicate the application of mind by<\/p>\n
     the assessing authority even while completing the best judgment<\/p>\n
     assessment and he is not expected to emboss his “seal of approval” to the<\/p>\n
     orders made by the intelligence officer of the department, since both these<\/p>\n
     proceedings are distinct and different.        In our considered view, the<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005              – 13 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     assessing authority has not independently applied his mind, but has merely<\/p>\n
     adopted whatever that was done by the intelligence officer of the<\/p>\n
     department for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 45A of the<\/p>\n
     Act. As we have already observed that the assessing officer is a quasi<\/p>\n
     judicial authority and while exercising his quasi judicial function, he has to<\/p>\n
     apply his mind independently and while doing so, can also take into<\/p>\n
     consideration the findings of the intelligence officer of the department and<\/p>\n
     at any rate, that cannot be the sole basis. In this view of the matter, we<\/p>\n
     cannot sustain the order passed by the assessing authority. Therefore, we<\/p>\n
     have no other alternative but to set aside the order passed and remand the<\/p>\n
     matter to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh order in<\/p>\n
     accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                   20. In view of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the<\/p>\n
     impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Act and that of the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, while allowing these Revision Petitions,<\/p>\n
     we set aside the impugned orders. The matter is remanded to the assessing<\/p>\n
     authority, with a direction to pass fresh assessment orders for the<\/p>\n
     assessment year 1996-97 both under KGST and CST Acts, in accordance<\/p>\n
     with law and in the light of the observations made by us in the course of<\/p>\n
S.T.RevNos.136 & 150 of 2005           – 14 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     our order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed<\/p>\n
     to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                   Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         H.L.DATTU,
\n                                                     CHIEF JUSTICE.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                      A.K. BASHEER,
\n                                                            JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
     DK.\n<\/p>\n
                               (True copy)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST.Rev..No. 136 of 2005() 1. M\/S. YESES INTERNATIONAL BHARATH … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble the Chief Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2853,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":2853,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008","name":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T13:39:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-yeses-international-bharath-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Yeses International Bharath vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}