TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1. A Judgment Beyond Its Borders
A recent Kerala High Court decision in Sunny v. State of Kerala (Crl. A No. 757 of 2014, decided on 24 October 2025 — 2025:KER:78693, per Johnson John J.) deals with a brutal acid-attack case. On its face, it is a criminal appeal under Sections 341 and 307 of the IPC. Yet, the reasoning—how evidence is weighed, contradictions reconciled, and intention inferred—offers striking parallels for adjudication under the GST law.
The Court reaffirmed that truth must be judged by the totality of circumstances. Minor inconsistencies, memory lapses, or procedural imperfections cannot defeat the core evidence if the chain of facts remains intact. In that case, even hostile witnesses and omissions in the medical record could not shake the injured victim’s consistent version—because, as the Court observed, “an injured witness carries intrinsic reliability.”
2. Proof and Intention: The Ratio
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents Balu Sudam Khalde and Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra - 2023 (3) TMI 1436 - Supreme Court; M.K. Anthony, AIR 1983 SC 48), the High Court reiterated two guiding ideas:
- Evidence must be seen in substance, not torn apart by technicalities.
A few conflicting statements do not nullify the whole if the main story holds. - Intention can be inferred from conduct and context.
Even without explicit proof of “mens rea”, sustained conduct and utterances may reveal knowledge and purpose.
This ratio—substance over form, inference over presumption—fits squarely into modern GST disputes, where findings often depend on circumstantial evidence and statutory intent.
3. When Criminal Logic Meets Tax Reality
In GST adjudication, “intention” governs the line between Section 73 (ordinary non-payment) and Section 74 (fraud or suppression). Officers must determine whether a taxpayer acted knowingly to evade tax or merely erred.
Here, the criminal ratio provides a mirror:
Criminal Ratio | Parallel in GST |
Minor contradictions done to erase truth. | Minor procedural defects (in notices or formats) should not vitiate substantive assessment. |
Intention inferred from total conduct. | Fraud or suppression inferred from consistent evasion behaviour, not presumed from omission. |
Injured witness presumed truthful. | Genuine voluntary disclosure or self-correction indicates bona fides. |
Punishment must fit gravity. | Penalty proportionality under Section 126 CGST Act. |
Both domains demand fairness anchored in context, not mechanical inference.
4. The Broader Message
The High Court also cautioned that justice must balance the rights of the offender, the victim, and society—a triad equally relevant to taxation. A fair GST system must protect revenue, respect taxpayer rights, and uphold credibility.
When officers invoke the extended limitation period or impose penalty, they must ask: Has intention been proven by conduct, or merely presumed by circumstance?
The Sunny judgment thus becomes more than a criminal law precedent—it is a lesson in how to think about intention, credibility, and proportionality. It reminds us that law lives not in rigid procedure but in rational appreciation of fact.
5. Closing Reflection
GST adjudication, like criminal justice, ultimately rests on the conscience of reason. Courts, officers, and practitioners must look for truth amid imperfections. As Justice Johnson John’s reasoning shows, evidence must be read as a story, not as a spreadsheet.
In that spirit, GST law too must move from presumption to persuasion, from fear to fairness—where intention is proven, not imagined.