{"id":5606,"date":"2007-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-11-30T22:57:58","modified_gmt":"2015-11-30T17:27:58","slug":"ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nTRC No. 4 of 2003()\n\n\n1. M\/S. NATIONAL STORES, PERINTHALMANNA.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n             ...................................................................................\n                       TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003\n            ...................................................................................\n                          Dated this the 22nd October, 2007\n\n\n                                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our<\/p>\n
consideration and decision:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)     Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
      case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the<\/p>\n
      rejection of books of accounts of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      ii)     Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
      case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that stock<\/p>\n
      inventories produced subsequent to the inspection was not the<\/p>\n
      genuine one. Has not the Tribunal committed an error in not<\/p>\n
      appreciating the facts properly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii)    Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
      case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the stock<\/p>\n
      differences detected on the basis of the subsequently produced<\/p>\n
      stock inventories cannot be treated as the actual variations<\/p>\n
      available at the time of inspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv)     Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
      case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there was<\/p>\n
      misclassification of taxable items at a large extent. Has not the<\/p>\n
      Tribunal committed an error in not verifying the duly audited<\/p>\n
      report?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      v)      Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
      case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the<\/p>\n
      revision petitioner have made an unaccounted purchase for<\/p>\n
      Rs.2,970\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
         vi)    Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
         case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining the addition<\/p>\n
         made    by  the   lower   authorities.      Is  not   the  addition<\/p>\n
         disproportionate and excessive?”\n<\/p>\n
         2. The factual matrix are: The assessee is a dealer registered under<\/p>\n
the provisions of the     Kerala General Sales Tax Act.        The assessee is a<\/p>\n
partnership firm, running a hardware shop at Perinthalmanna in Malappuram<\/p>\n
district. The assessment year in question is 1997-98.<\/p>\n
         3. The business premises of the assessee had been inspected by the<\/p>\n
Intelligence Squad of Sales Tax Department . After such inspection, they have<\/p>\n
prepared a shop inspection report.         In that report, there is a categorical<\/p>\n
finding that the assessee had not maintained either the stock register or stock<\/p>\n
inventory at the time of inspection.\n<\/p>\n
         4.  The assessee in the annual return filed before the assessing<\/p>\n
authority had conceded       the total turnover    of Rs.52,48,298.95\/-    and the<\/p>\n
taxable turnover of Rs.15,01,213.30\/-.        Before completion of assessment<\/p>\n
proceedings, the assessing authority had received the shop inspection report<\/p>\n
of the Inspection Squad of the Department. After rejecting the returns so filed<\/p>\n
by the assessee , the assessing authority had issued a pre-assessment notice.<\/p>\n
In the said notice, the assessing authority had pointed out the irregularities<\/p>\n
pointed by the inspection squad of the Department. The irregularities pointed<\/p>\n
out by the assessing authority, as found in the assessment order, is extracted<\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
         “The books of accounts cannot be accepted as correct and<\/p>\n
         complete for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
     1.      The following purchase is not seen supported by bill.<\/p>\n
             Madhu Industries      09.06.1997            Rs. 2970.00<\/p>\n
     2.      You have not kept and produced either stock register or<\/p>\n
     stock inventory.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      Your business place was inspected by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
     Officer, Malappuram on 13\/11\/1997 and prepared          SIR No.<\/p>\n
     294933. Subsequently, the books of accounts were verified by<\/p>\n
     that office. On verification certain irregularities and stock<\/p>\n
     differences were noticed. The discrepancies were admitted by<\/p>\n
     you and as per your request the offence was compounded on<\/p>\n
     payment of Rs. 350\/-          vide order No.TRL.3\/97-98 dtd.<\/p>\n
     03\/12\/1997.     The non-accounting of purchases and stock<\/p>\n
     difference are startling example for sales and purchases.<\/p>\n
     4. You have mis-classified the taxable items at a large extent.<\/p>\n
     The following details submitted by yourself would clear the point<\/p>\n
     purchase list given by you in the Head of 8% taxable goods<\/p>\n
     contain- cement products, brushes, paints, varnishes, powder ,<\/p>\n
     locks of all varieties, rubber products, plastics items. These<\/p>\n
     items come under 10% and 12.5% respectively. Hence, the<\/p>\n
     sales turnover furnished under 8% would attract 10% and<\/p>\n
     12.5%      according to the volume of purchases and sales<\/p>\n
     involved. Besides that you have reported a taxable 6% in your<\/p>\n
     statement. These items would attract 8% tax instead of 6%.<\/p>\n
             I have verified the SIR with reference to the above and<\/p>\n
     available records. At the time of the inspection there was no<\/p>\n
     stock register or stock inventory.      In the absence of stock<\/p>\n
     register or stock inventory, I was really surprised how the<\/p>\n
     verification was fruitfully completed.   So the exercise done by<\/p>\n
     the Intelligence Officer is not sufficient. Hence an addition on<\/p>\n
     turnover is required.\n<\/p>\n
             The sales turnover of taxable goods seen incredibly low,<\/p>\n
     considering the opening stock, purchase and closing stock.<\/p>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
                From the above, it was clear that you have failed to<\/p>\n
        maintain the books of accounts correctly and completely. It was<\/p>\n
        therefore proposed to reject the books of accounts and to<\/p>\n
        complete the final assessment to the best of judgment as<\/p>\n
        follows:”\n<\/p>\n
        5. After rejecting the books of accounts, the assessing authority has<\/p>\n
added 10% to the total turnover declared by the assessee and thereafter has<\/p>\n
quantified the tax liability.   Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had<\/p>\n
unsuccessfully filed first appeal before the 1st appellate authority and second<\/p>\n
appeal before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate<\/p>\n
Tribunal. The Tribunal has not interfered with the orders passed by either the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority or the assessing authority. That is how, the assessee<\/p>\n
is before us in this Tax Revision Case.\n<\/p>\n
        6. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that<\/p>\n
the best judgment assessment order passed by the assessing authority is<\/p>\n
without   any    basis whatsoever.    According to the learned counsel,     the<\/p>\n
inspecting squad of the Department had               compounded the offence<\/p>\n
departmentally by accepting      a sum of Rs. 350\/- for the irregularities which<\/p>\n
are said to have been detected at the time of inspection by the inspection<\/p>\n
squad of the Department.         Therefore, it is submitted that the assessing<\/p>\n
authority should have added only the actual suppression that was detected by<\/p>\n
the inspecting squad of the Department.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Shri   Muhammed Rafiq, learned Senior Government Pleader<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondent, justifies the orders passed by the assessing<\/p>\n
authority. The first principles, for the purpose of best judgment assessment<\/p>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
order, is enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali<\/a> ( [1973] 32 STC 77 ).            In the<\/p>\n
said decision, the Court has observed as under:<\/p>\n
       “In estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is<\/p>\n
       some guess-work. The assessing authority while making the<\/p>\n
       best judgment assessment, no doubt, should arrive at his<\/p>\n
       conclusion    without any bias and on a rational basis.      That<\/p>\n
       authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the estimate<\/p>\n
       made by the assessing authority is a bona fide estimate and is<\/p>\n
       based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no good proof in<\/p>\n
       support of that      estimate is immaterial.   Prima facie,    the<\/p>\n
       assessing authority is the best judge of the situation. It is his<\/p>\n
       best judgment and not anyone else’s. The High Court cannot<\/p>\n
       substitute its best judgment for that of the assessing authority.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       8. In the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1997-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
98, the assessee had conceded the total turnover of Rs. 52,48,298.95 \/- and<\/p>\n
the taxable turnover for a sum of Rs.15,01,213.30\/- . The assessing authority<\/p>\n
has rejected the returns so filed by the assessee . It has been pointed out by<\/p>\n
the assessing authority that the assessee has not maintained either the stock<\/p>\n
register or the stock inventory . He has further stated that the assessee in the<\/p>\n
returns filed had mis-classified the goods and therefore, the return so filed by<\/p>\n
the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, he had made just an addition<\/p>\n
of 10% of the total turnover conceded by the assessee. That comes to Rs.<\/p>\n
5,24,829.89\/- In a case of this nature, in our opinion, the assessing authority<\/p>\n
has shown a lenient attitude towards the assessee , when the stock books<\/p>\n
were not available and when the assessee had not even maintained stock<\/p>\n
inventories and had misclassified the goods. The assessing authority should<\/p>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
have   made      some more addition to the total turnover    declared by the<\/p>\n
assessee. But the assessing authority, as we have already stated, taking a<\/p>\n
very lenient view in the matter, has just made an addition of a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
5,24,829.89\/- to the total turnover declared by the assessee and thereafter<\/p>\n
has proceeded to quantify the tax liability of the assessee.<\/p>\n
       9. The assessment order made by the assessee is best judgment<\/p>\n
assessment .      Since it is a best judgment, the assessing authority was<\/p>\n
expected to give proper reasons to reject the books of accounts and then to<\/p>\n
proceed to pass the best judgment assessment. Time and again , it is settled<\/p>\n
that the assessing authority while rejecting the returns, is not expected to<\/p>\n
complete the said assessment on surmises, presumptions or whims and<\/p>\n
fancies.   In the instant case, the assessing authority before rejecting the<\/p>\n
returns filed by the assessee, has given out detailed reasons for rejecting the<\/p>\n
returns filed by the assessee and those reasons can neither be construed as<\/p>\n
either presumptions or assumptions . The said rejection order was passed<\/p>\n
purely based on the report of the intelligence wing of the Department. If the<\/p>\n
assessing authority has     relied on that information and has proceeded to<\/p>\n
complete the best judgment assessment , in our opinion, in a Revision, we are<\/p>\n
not expected to interfere with the said best judgment assessment.       In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter, the Revision case filed by the assessee requires to be<\/p>\n
rejected and the questions of law framed by the assessee require to be<\/p>\n
answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.       Accordingly,<\/p>\n
we pass the following:<\/p>\n
\n\nTAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003\n\n                                       7<\/span>\n\n                            O R D E R\n\n      i)      Tax Revision Case is rejected.\n\n      ii)     The questions of law framed by the assessee is answered\n\n<\/pre>\n
against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.<\/p>\n
      iii)    Pending Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also disposed of.<\/p>\n
      Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   H.L. DATTU,
\n                                                 CHIEF JUSTICE.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  K.T. SANKARAN,
\n                                                       JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n
TAX REVISION CASE. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         H.L. DATTU, C.J.&
\n                                         K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ………………………………………………..<\/p>\n
                                       T.R.C. No. 4 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 …………………………………………………
\n                                 Dated this the 22nd October, 2007<\/p>\n
                                                  O R D E R<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM TRC No. 4 of 2003() 1. M\/S. NATIONAL STORES, PERINTHALMANNA. … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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-5606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 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-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-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. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-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=\"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-30T17:27:58+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=\"9 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-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-30T17:27:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1668,\"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-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-30T17:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 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. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 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-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-30T17:27:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-30T17:27:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007"},"wordCount":1668,"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-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007","name":"M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-30T17:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-stores-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. National Stores vs State Of Kerala on 22 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\/5606","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=5606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}