{"id":215544,"date":"2007-10-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007"},"modified":"2016-04-04T05:09:40","modified_gmt":"2016-04-03T23:39:40","slug":"ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST Rev No. 145 of 2004()\n\n\n1. M\/S.KALLIYATH WIRE DISTRIBUTORS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :24\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.\n                      --------------------------------------------------\n                           S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004\n                        --------------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 24th day of October, 2007.\n\n                                        O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
               The assessment year in question is 1989-90. The assessee is a<\/p>\n
dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.<\/p>\n
Its main activity is sale and supply of iron and steel. The assessee had filed<\/p>\n
its annual return before the assessing authority for the assessment year 1989-<\/p>\n
90. The assessing authority has rejected the return so filed by the assessee<\/p>\n
and has proceeded to complete the best judgment assessment and while<\/p>\n
doing so has taken into consideration the suppression detected by the<\/p>\n
Intelligence Wing of the department, the check post declarations and the<\/p>\n
findings of the Income Tax Department and thereafter has made an addition of<\/p>\n
25 percent to the total turnover conceded by the dealer.<\/p>\n
               (2). Aggrieved by the said quantification of tax liability of the<\/p>\n
assessing authority, the assessee had filed appeal before the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority in S.T.A.No.156 of 1998. The appellate authority has modified the<\/p>\n
additions made by the assessing authority. While doing so has observed in his<\/p>\n
order dated 02-04-1998 as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “Considering the fact that the assessment was<\/p>\n
            completed on the basis of the findings of the<\/p>\n
            Income Tax Department the entire suppression<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004
\n                                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
           have been covered.       Hence further addition of<\/p>\n
           25% is unwarranted and that addition is hereby<\/p>\n
           deleted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3).   The first appellate authority has further directed the<\/p>\n
assessing authority to modify the assessment of the assessee for the<\/p>\n
assessment year 1989-90 by adding the actual suppression detected by the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Department to the total turnover declared by the assessee.<\/p>\n
              (4). The assessee, being aggrieved by the said order passed by<\/p>\n
the first appellate authority, had carried the matter in appeal before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal in T.A.No.177 of 1998. The Tribunal has rejected the appeal by its<\/p>\n
order dated 24th September, 2003 and while doing so, at para 5 of the order<\/p>\n
has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “The next issue to be decided in this appeal is<\/p>\n
            whether the addition sustained by the Ist<\/p>\n
            appellate authority is reasonable and just. The<\/p>\n
            appellant’s counsel vehemently argued that the<\/p>\n
            turnover   suppression     arrived by    the  I.T.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Authorities are incorrect and an appeal is pending<\/p>\n
            before the Commissioner of Income Tax. He also<\/p>\n
            pointed out that the closing stock of iron scrap<\/p>\n
            worth Rs.16,60,777\/- assessed during the year<\/p>\n
            1989-90 is incorrect and unwarranted.         On<\/p>\n
            perusal of the assessment order it is found that<\/p>\n
            the assessing authority has not assessed      the<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004
\n                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
         closing stock as alleged by the appellant. The<\/p>\n
         raid conducted by the I.T. Authorities revealed<\/p>\n
         that certain purchases were not accounted in the<\/p>\n
         stock register.  If the purchases were properly<\/p>\n
         accounted total stock as on 31-3-90 would have<\/p>\n
         been Rs.22,53,305\/- whereas        the value of<\/p>\n
         closing stock shown as per the account was<\/p>\n
         Rs.5,92,528\/- only. Thus there was a difference<\/p>\n
         of Rs.16,60,777\/-. It is therefore clear that the<\/p>\n
         appellant-dealer had disposed scraps worth<\/p>\n
         Rs.16,60,777\/- without accounting the same in<\/p>\n
         the books of accounts. It is relevant to note that<\/p>\n
         the search was conducted by the I.T. Department<\/p>\n
         on 29-11-90 i.e., after the close of the financial<\/p>\n
         year. The assessing authority is therefore correct<\/p>\n
         in treating the difference of Rs.16,60,777\/-   as<\/p>\n
         unaccounted sales. Even though the counsel for<\/p>\n
         the appellant has stated that an appeal was filed<\/p>\n
         against the order of the I.T. Officer before the<\/p>\n
         Commissioner no orders have been produced.<\/p>\n
         Since the assessment in question relates to 89-<\/p>\n
         90, we do not find any reason to keep this appeal<\/p>\n
         further pending. The Ist appellate authority has<\/p>\n
         sustained the actual suppression detected alone<\/p>\n
         and the addition of 25% made by the assessing<\/p>\n
         authority   towards    probable  omissions    and<\/p>\n
         suppression was deleted. In view of the above<\/p>\n
         facts we do     not find any reason to order any<\/p>\n
         further relief in this case.  The objections are<\/p>\n
         accordingly over-ruled and the appeal stands<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004
\n                                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
            dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
                (5). Aggrieved by the findings and conclusions reached by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, the assessee is before us in this revision petition.<\/p>\n
                (6). The assessee has framed the following questions of law for<\/p>\n
our consideration and decision:\n<\/p>\n
            “(i). Is not the Tribunal in error in confirming the<\/p>\n
            best judgment addition on the findings of the<\/p>\n
            Income Tax Department to fix the turnover when<\/p>\n
            those findings were cancelled by the Ist appellate<\/p>\n
            authority and set aside by the Income Tax<\/p>\n
            Tribunal?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (ii). Is not the Tribunal in error in confirming the<\/p>\n
            best judgment addition without any independent<\/p>\n
            finding of suppression or omission by the Sales<\/p>\n
            Tax Department, while the findings of the Income<\/p>\n
            Tax Department relied by the sales tax authorities<\/p>\n
            were cancelled and set aside by the Income Tax<\/p>\n
            Appellate Authorities?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)  Is not the Tribunal being the highest fact<\/p>\n
            finding authority erred in not considering the entry<\/p>\n
            of scrap purchases in the books of accounts?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (7). Sri. K.Srikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
brings to our notice that the assessee being aggrieved by the suppression<\/p>\n
detected by the Income Tax Department had carried the matter in appeal<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004
\n                                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since it did not get a<\/p>\n
favourable order in the hands of the first appellate authority, it had carried the<\/p>\n
matter before the Tribunal by filing the second appeal.       It appears that the<\/p>\n
Tribunal had remanded the matter to the assessing authority (Income Tax<\/p>\n
Department) to re-do the matter in accordance with law. It is also informed to<\/p>\n
us that after such remand, the Income Tax Officer has reduced the actual<\/p>\n
suppression   detected    by   the   department     from   Rs.16,60,777\/-       to<\/p>\n
Rs.12,20,653\/-. Therefore, contends that the actual suppression that requires<\/p>\n
to be added to the total turnover of the dealer for the purpose of quantification<\/p>\n
of the tax liability under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales tax Act<\/p>\n
could only be Rs.12,20,653\/-. At this stage, it is appropriate to observe that the<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Department has not questioned the correctness or otherwise of the<\/p>\n
orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in S.T.A.No.156 of<\/p>\n
1998 and the orders passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.177 of 1998 dated 24th<\/p>\n
September, 2003, wherein the first appellate authority and the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
proceeded to observe that the assessing authority while completing the best<\/p>\n
judgment assessment in the assessee’s case had entirely relied on the<\/p>\n
suppression detected by the Income Tax Department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (8). In view of the subsequent order passed by the Income Tax<\/p>\n
Officer, on remand by the Tribunal, the actual suppression detected by the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Department is only Rs.12,20,653\/-. Therefore that amount alone<\/p>\n
can be added to the turnover conceded by the dealer, while computing the tax<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.No.145 of 2004
\n                                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
liability under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.<\/p>\n
                 (9). In view of the above, we dispose of this revision petition<\/p>\n
with a direction to the assessing authority to make an addition of only a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,20,653\/- instead of Rs.16,60,777\/- to the total turnover conceded by<\/p>\n
the dealer for the assessment year 1989-90 and issue a fresh demand notice.<\/p>\n
                 Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                           (H.L.DATTU)
\n                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                         (K.M.JOSEPH)
\n                                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
MS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST Rev No. 145 of 2004() 1. M\/S.KALLIYATH WIRE DISTRIBUTORS, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The […]<\/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-215544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - 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-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-03T23:39:40+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=\"6 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-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T23:39:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1224,\"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-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T23:39:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - 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-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-03T23:39:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T23:39:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007"},"wordCount":1224,"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-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007","name":"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T23:39:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kalliyath-wire-distributors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Kalliyath Wire Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/215544","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=215544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}