Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jugsalai Nagar Parishad vs Union Of India on 7 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 2394 of 2025
M/s Jugsalai Nagar Parishad, through its Executive Officer, Sandip
Paswan, S/o Jagarnath Paswan, Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (T) No. 2493 of 2025
M/s Chakardharpur Nagar Parishad, through its Executive Officer,
Rahul Yadav, S/o Basudeo Gope, Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. &
P.S.-Chakardharpur, District-East Singhbhum
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C
Ex., Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (T) No. 2495 of 2025
M/s Chaibasa Nagar Parishad, through its Executive Officer,
Santoshni Murmu, W/o Sujit Tudu, R/o Amla Tola, near BSNL
Exchange office, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-Chaibasa
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C
Ex., Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (T) No. 4093 of 2025
M/s Adityapur Municipal Corporation, through its Additional
Municipal Commissioner, Ravi Prakash, S/o Birendra Prasad Singh,
Office at Kalpanapuri near S-Type Chowk, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-
Adityapur Seraikella-Kharsawan
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
1
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (T) No. 4240 of 2025
Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, through its Special Officer,
Arvind Tirkey, S/o Lazrus Tirkey, Office at New Kalimati Road,
Sakchi, P.O.-Sakchi, P.S.-Sakchi Town, Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (T) No. 5140 of 2025
M/s Mango Municipal Corporation, through its Assistant Municipal
Commissioner, Aquib Javed, S/o Md. Athar, Gandhi Maidan, in front
of Hanuman Mandir, New Purulia Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S.-Ulidih,
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Ranchi Zone, Patna (Bihar)
4. The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & C Ex.,
Jamshedpur ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
—–
For the Petitioners: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
—–
05/07.04.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the orders passed by
the adjudicating authorities, against which, the petitioners have
alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring appeals under
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
3. The impugned orders, in turn, inform the petitioners that they have
right to appeal and even give the details of the appellate authority.
Despite all these, the petitioners, based on a bald statement in
these writ petitions that they have got no other alternative and/or
equally efficacious, speedy and economical remedy, have instituted
these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the demand of GST
upon the petitioners, which are Municipal Corporations or Nagar
Parishads, is patently illegal and therefore without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel relies on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise
and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 and Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 to submit that where an
order is wholly without jurisdiction, the plea of alternative remedy
cannot be a bar to the entertainability of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon a decision
rendered by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the
case of Cuddalore Municipality v. Joint Commissioner of GST
and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli reported in (2021) 93
GSTR 287 to submit that this decision supports a blanket
proposition that under no circumstances, GST can be demanded
from Municipal Corporations or local self-government authorities
like the Municipal Corporation, Nagar Panchayat etc.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the provisions
under Article 243W & 243X together with Entry-V in List-2 of
Schedule-VII of the Constitution to make good his submission that
3
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
local self-government authorities like Municipal Corporation etc. are
immune from taxation under the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset,
submits that the blanket proposition advanced on behalf of the
petitioners is quite misconceived. He submits that this contention
was duly considered by the adjudicating authority, who while
referring to several factual aspects, concluded that only core
activities of a Corporation or a local self-government body might be
able to claim some exemption. He submits that in these cases, GST
was imposed on routine sale of goods or services transactions and
there was no Constitutional or statutory bar to such imposition.
8. In any event, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
these are the matters, which the petitioners may appropriately
raise before the appellant authority and no case is made out for
entertaining these writ petitions.
9. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that
these are not fit cases to be entertained by exercising our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
when the Petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy
available to them.
10. At least prima facie, based on the arguments presented earlier and
the decision issued by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High
Court, we do not believe that Municipal Corporations or other local
self-government authorities are exempt or immune from taxation
under the CGST Act, 2017, regarding all the transactions or
activities they carry out.
11. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the impugned orders now
passed by the adjudicating authorities are “wholly without
4
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
jurisdiction” which is really the test propounded in Whirlpool
Corporation (supra) and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra).
12. In these cases, even for deciding the jurisdictional issue, reference
will essentially have to be made to the factual aspects of the
transactions, upon which taxes are sought to be levied. The
adjudicating authority has undertaken this exercise and only
thereafter has confirmed the demand.
13. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for us to hold that the
determination of the adjudicating authority is either right or wrong
because such a holding might prejudice the petitioners, in case,
they decide to avail the alternative remedy of preferring appeals.
However, we must say that the above issues, which shall involve a
factual determination regards the transactions, which are sought to
be taxed, cannot or at least need not be adjudicated by us
exercising our extraordinary and summary jurisdiction because the
legislature has provided the petitioners with an
alternative/efficacious/ statutory remedy of preferring appeals
where such questions can be suitably addressed.
14. In the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. The Union of
India & Others reported in (2025) 137 GSTR 601, the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court has considered the circumstances
in which a statutory and alternative remedy may be bye-passed
and a writ petition may directly be entertained. In the said decision,
the Bombay High Court has referred to and relied upon several
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court explaining the
circumstances in which the alternative remedy may be bye-passed.
15. The decision rendered in the case of Oberoi Constructions
Limited (supra) and several precedents referred to therein, holds
that only under exceptional circumstances, the extraordinary
5
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised
when the legislature has provided the petitioner with alternative
and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal.
16. In these cases, as noted earlier, the test prescribed in Whirlpool
Corporation (supra) and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra) cannot
be said to have been fulfilled. The adjudication of the issues now
raised in these writ petitions would involve a serious factual
element, which may not be appropriately undertaken in exercise of
extraordinary and summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. No exceptional case has been made out.
17. If the levy of GST is indeed contrary to law or contrary to the
Constitutional provisions as the petitioners seek to interpret them,
such issues can always be raised before the appellate authority just
as they were raised before the adjudicating authority at the first
instance. These are not the cases where the provisions of any
statute have been questioned on the ground of unconstitutionality
or the principle of ultra vires.
18. For all the above reasons, we decline to entertain these writ
petitions, but leave it open to the petitioners to avail the
alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeals as
may be available to them under the CGST Act, 2017.
19. However, we take cognizance of the fact that the petitioners have
been Bonafide pursuing these writ petitions before this Court.
Therefore, if they institute appeals within four weeks from the date
of uploading of this order after complying with all the prescribed
statutory formalities, the appellate authority is directed to hear
such appeals on their own merits and in accordance with law
without adverting to the issue of limitation.
6
2026:JHHC:9732-DB
20. All contentions of the parties are explicitly left open. Even the
observations made in this order are for the limited purpose of
determining whether the petitioners should be relegated to the
alternate statutory remedies. Therefore, even such observations
need not influence the appellate authority in deciding the appeals,
if instituted in terms of the liberty now granted.
21. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the
liberty in the above terms.
22. No costs.
(M. S. SONAK, C.J.)
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)
07.04.2026
Satish/Vikas/
Uploaded on 09.04.2026
7
