{"id":261510,"date":"2008-05-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-22T11:22:04","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T05:52:04","slug":"p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST.Rev..No. 106 of 2005()\n\n\n1. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :22\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C. HARI RANI, J.\n               ------------------------------------------------------------------\n                               S.T.Rev.No.106 of 2005\n                    -------------------------------------------------------\n                      Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008\n\n                                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
               The issues involved in this tax revision case, in our opinion, lies<\/p>\n
in a narrow compass. Therefore, detailed discussion of the case pleaded by<\/p>\n
the parties need not be noticed by us in extenso.\n<\/p>\n
               (2). The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (” Act ” for short).<\/p>\n
               (3).    The assessee is doing business in timber.                   For the<\/p>\n
assessment year 1998-1999, the assessing authority has completed regular<\/p>\n
assessment under Section 17 (4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
               (4).     The assessing authority, based on the information<\/p>\n
received from the check post authorities with regard to certain declarations<\/p>\n
filed, had re-opened the assessments by issuing notice dated 3-3-2002 under<\/p>\n
Section 19 of the Act.       In response to the said notice, the assessee firstly<\/p>\n
had denied that he is not the consignee or purchaser that was shown in the<\/p>\n
check post declarations.           Apart from that, he had also requested the<\/p>\n
assessing authority to furnish him the copies of the check post declarations,<\/p>\n
invoices, details of the vehicles used for transport of the goods from<\/p>\n
Karnataka to Kerala and the details of payments made to the Karnataka<\/p>\n
dealers. Further, he has stated in his reply that, he would be in a position to<\/p>\n
file a detailed reply to the notice dated 3-3-2002                  after the receipt of the<\/p>\n
STRV No.106\/2005                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
documents requested in the reply letter.\n<\/p>\n
                (5). The assessing authority, after receiving the letter dated<\/p>\n
20-5-2002 from the assessee, had directed the assessee to appear before<\/p>\n
him on 6-7-2002 to collect the details of the copies requested in the reply<\/p>\n
letter dated 20-5-2002. For various reasons, the assessee could not appear<\/p>\n
before the assessing authority on the day on which he was asked to appear.<\/p>\n
The assessing authority has completed re-assessment by his order dated<\/p>\n
26-7-2002 and has made an addition of Rs.3,98,750\/-            to the conceded<\/p>\n
turnover for the assessment year 1998-1999.\n<\/p>\n
                (6). Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was before the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority, who in turn, has modified the order of re-assessment<\/p>\n
passed by the assessing authority.\n<\/p>\n
                (7). The assessee, not being satisfied by the orders passed by<\/p>\n
the first appellate authority, had preferred T.A.No.135\/2003 before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. The Revenue also had preferred T.A.No.280\/2003 against the<\/p>\n
orders of the first appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
                (8). The Tribunal, by its common order dated 25th November,<\/p>\n
2004 has modified the orders passed by the first appellate authority.<\/p>\n
                (9). Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Tribunal, the<\/p>\n
assessee is before us in this tax revision case.\n<\/p>\n
                (10). The assessee has framed the following questions of law<\/p>\n
for our consideration and decision. They are as under:<\/p>\n
STRV No.106\/2005                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
         “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and
\n         in the light of the provisions contained in Sec.30B(4) and the
\n         principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the decisions
\n         reported in James Vs. AIT & Sales Tax Officer (2002 (10)
\n         KTR 302) and M.K.Pushparanjini Vs. Sales Tax Officer and
\n         others (2003 (11) KTR 527):-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         a).    The Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining
\n         reassessment based on check post Declarations referred to in
\n         the Assessment Order with reference to which the alleged
\n         unaccounted purchases are denied by the petitioner?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         b).   The Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining the
\n         addition and the reassessment which is made in violation of
\n         the provisions contained in Sec.30B (4), the principles of
\n         which are interpreted and laid down in James Vs. AIT &
\n         Sales    Tax     Officer      (2002    (10)  KTR     302)     and
\n         M.K.Pushparanjini Vs. Sales Tax Officer and others (2003
\n         (11) KTR 527) by this Hon’ble Court?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         c). Without prejudice to the above questions, the appellate
\n         Tribunal is justified in enhancing the gross profit from 5 to
\n         20% on the alleged unaccounted purchases in determining
\n         the sales turnover?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2. Is the order of the Appellate Tribunal legally valid and
\n         sustainable in law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (11). At the time of hearing of this revision petition, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the assessee would submit that the respondent assessing<\/p>\n
authority, without furnishing the details as requested by the assessee in his<\/p>\n
letter dated 20-5-2002 and also without holding proper enquiry has passed<\/p>\n
the impugned order, and therefore, the learned counsel would characterise<\/p>\n
the orders passed by the assessing authority not only as arbitrary but also in<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice. Though, this was brought to the<\/p>\n
STRV No.106\/2005                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
notice of the first appellate authority, the first appellate authority has not<\/p>\n
given his finding in this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the assessee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               (12).    Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, learned senior Government<\/p>\n
Pleader appearing for the Revenue would submit that, the assessing authority<\/p>\n
had directed the assessee to appear before him to collect the information that<\/p>\n
the assessee wanted, on a particular day and since the assessee did not<\/p>\n
appear on that day, the assessing authority had no other alternative but to<\/p>\n
confirm the notice dated 3-3-2002.\n<\/p>\n
               (13). We have carefully perused the orders of assessment<\/p>\n
passed by the assessing authority and the           orders passed by the first<\/p>\n
appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. In the assessment order passed,<\/p>\n
the assessing authority has adverted to the         notice issued by him dated<\/p>\n
3-3-2002 and also the reply of the assessee dated 20-5-2002.              Merely<\/p>\n
because the assessee did not appear on a particular day on which date he<\/p>\n
was asked to appear, the assessing authority has proceeded to pass an order<\/p>\n
under Section 19 (1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
               (14). The admitted facts are : The assessment is completed<\/p>\n
for the assessment year 1998-1999 in           the  petitioner’s\/assessee’s case<\/p>\n
under Section 17 (4) of the Act. After completion of the assessments, the<\/p>\n
assessing authority has received the so-called check post declarations made<\/p>\n
showing the name of the assessee as the consignee\/purchaser. In view of<\/p>\n
the   aforesaid    information    received,    the   assessing    authority  has<\/p>\n
re-opened the assessments by issuing notice under Section 19 of the Act.<\/p>\n
STRV No.106\/2005                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
The notice is dated 3-3-2002. After receipt of the notice, the assessee had<\/p>\n
not only denied the transaction, but also had requested the assessing<\/p>\n
authority to furnish certain documents and details so as to facilitate him to<\/p>\n
effectively reply the allegations made in the notice dated 3-3-2002.       The<\/p>\n
assessing authority had directed the assessee to appear before him on a<\/p>\n
particular day.   For various reasons which are mentioned in the revision<\/p>\n
petition, the assessee could not appear before the assessing authority on<\/p>\n
6-7-2002. The assessing authority, in our opinion, could have granted one<\/p>\n
more opportunity to the petitioner\/assessee to appear before him and collect<\/p>\n
the documents      which the assessee      wanted in his reply letter dated<\/p>\n
20-5-2002 and could have afforded an opportunity to the assessee to file a<\/p>\n
detailed and effective reply to the notice. That has not been done in the<\/p>\n
present case.    The assessee was denied the opportunity to counter the<\/p>\n
allegations made in the notice. This,    in our opinion, is not only contrary to<\/p>\n
the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the basic principles of<\/p>\n
passing orders under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, it is difficult for us to<\/p>\n
sustain the re-assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under<\/p>\n
Section 19 (1) of the Act dated    26-7-2002. This aspect of the matter ought<\/p>\n
to have been taken note of by the first appellate authority as well as by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Since that has not been done in the instant case, we cannot sustain<\/p>\n
those orders also .\n<\/p>\n
               (15). In view of the above, we have no other alternative, but to<\/p>\n
remand the matter to the assessing authority, to re-do the matter, in<\/p>\n
accordance with law, after furnishing the copies which the petitioner\/assessee<\/p>\n
STRV No.106\/2005                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
requested in his letter dated 20-5-2002. Accordingly, we pass the following:<\/p>\n
                                     Order<\/p>\n
       i).   The petitioner\/assessee shall appear before the assessing<\/p>\n
authority on 23rd June, 2008 to collect whatever documents that are available<\/p>\n
with the assessing authority and file an effective reply to the notice issued by<\/p>\n
the assessing authority dated 3-3-2002, within 15 days thereafter.<\/p>\n
       ii).   After considering the reply that may be filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/assessee within the time granted by this Court, and after holding an<\/p>\n
enquiry, the assessing authority is directed to pass fresh re-assessment order<\/p>\n
in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
              (16). Consequently, I.A.No.578\/2005 is closed.<\/p>\n
              Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                         (H.L.DATTU)
\n                                                       CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                       (M.C.HARI RANI)
\n                                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
MS\/dk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST.Rev..No. 106 of 2005() 1. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon’ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI […]<\/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-261510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 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\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-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=\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T05:52:04+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T05:52:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1405,\"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\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\",\"name\":\"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T05:52:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 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":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 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\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T05:52:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T05:52:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008"},"wordCount":1405,"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\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008","name":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T05:52:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 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\/261510","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=261510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}