CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

295 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2007#1157 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board authority for?

A statutory corporation undertaking activities that generate income qualifies as a charitable entity under Section 2(15) if its dominant object is general public utility and it is legally obligated to apply its income solely for that purpose, even if the activities appear to be in the nature of trade or business. Such an entity is entitled to registration under Section 12A and exemptions under Section 11.

98

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Gujarat Maritime Board · 295 ITR 561 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · Section 12A · Section 10(46) · charitable purpose · general public utility · statutory corporation · profit motive · application of income

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 58214 CTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(46)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205advancement of general public utilitysection 10(23c)(iv)section 10(20a)section 36(1)(v)section 10(46)section 73proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)section 52section 2(15)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 174/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

For Appellant: S/shri S.R Rao & Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 64Section 65Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 174 & 63/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(s) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. PAN : AAALC0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, A…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on of commercial complex by charitable trust is eligible. If the objects of the “Authority” is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), where it was observed that:- “... in Section 2(15), namely, “any other object of general public utility”. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a se…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on of commercial complex by charitable trust is eligible. If the objects of the “Authority” is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), where it was observed that:- “... in Section 2(15), namely, “any other object of general public utility”. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a se…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on of commercial complex by charitable trust is eligible. If the objects of the “Authority” is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), where it was observed that:- “... in Section 2(15), namely, “any other object of general public utility”. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a se…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on of commercial complex by charitable trust is eligible. If the objects of the “Authority” is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), where it was observed that:- “... in Section 2(15), namely, “any other object of general public utility”. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a se…

DCIT, Circle 1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India Habitate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5740/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…accepted the plea of IHC that they are a charitable organization. This has been done by relying on the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of ITPO referred to in the previous paragraph. Further, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 295 ITR 561 as well as in its recent decision in Queen's Educational Society has also applied the Surat Art Silk test to determine the dominant object of the respective assesses. Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hamdard Laboratories India vs. Assistant Director of Income tax (Exemption) stated that it is hardly possible for a charitable t…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…r profit", it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object of general public utility and not the advancement thereof. 4.25 In CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterates the above principle of Surat Art Silks case [supra] by observing as follows: 14. He has perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, 'any other object of generally public utility'. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the wide…

M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…considered in a catena of decisions. The said expression is of the widest connotation. Words ''general' in the said expression is pertaining to a whole class. Court relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), and held that advancement of any object or benefit to the public or a section of public is distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals, and would be a charitable purpose. In Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench h…

M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…considered in a catena of decisions. The said expression is of the widest connotation. Words ''general' in the said expression is pertaining to a whole class. Court relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), and held that advancement of any object or benefit to the public or a section of public is distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals, and would be a charitable purpose. In Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench h…

M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…considered in a catena of decisions. The said expression is of the widest connotation. Words ''general' in the said expression is pertaining to a whole class. Court relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), and held that advancement of any object or benefit to the public or a section of public is distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals, and would be a charitable purpose. In Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench h…

The Dy. CIT, (Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, (Bca), Vadodara

In the result, all the tax appeals fail and are hereby dismissed

ITA 6/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT DRFor Respondent: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…includes all objects to promote the welfare of the public, and when an object is to promote or protect the interest of particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility and would be charitable purpose (Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) [see Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee, (2011) 336 ITR 641 146. In our opinion, this could be termed as a charitable purpose which has as its motive advancement of an object of general public utility to which the exception carved out in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would not apply. ………… 177. In the…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 24/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…dan Mandi Samite 2012 (12) SCC 267 5. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC) 6. CIT Versus Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 7. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) 8. Thiagarajar Charities Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997] 4 SCC 724 Page 177 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 9. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR539 (Gujarat), Since the order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of appellant is post the order of Hon’ble Kerala Hig…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 23/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…dan Mandi Samite 2012 (12) SCC 267 5. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC) 6. CIT Versus Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 7. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) 8. Thiagarajar Charities Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997] 4 SCC 724 Page 177 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 9. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR539 (Gujarat), Since the order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of appellant is post the order of Hon’ble Kerala Hig…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 211/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…dan Mandi Samite 2012 (12) SCC 267 5. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC) 6. CIT Versus Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 7. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) 8. Thiagarajar Charities Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997] 4 SCC 724 Page 177 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 9. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR539 (Gujarat), Since the order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of appellant is post the order of Hon’ble Kerala Hig…