Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 2539 of 2025
M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Limited, having its Head
Officer at 702, 7th Floor, Panchwati Plaza, Kutchery Road, Ranchi,
P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, through its Authorized
Signatory, Raj Gupta, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Gupta, R/o Gupta
Niwas, Road No. 05, near Devi Mandap, New Madhukam, Shakti
Nagar, Hehal, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Commercial Taxes
Department (now State Tax Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (now
Commissioner of State Tax Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Administration), Ranchi
Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (now Joint Commissioner
of State Tax), West Circle Ranchi
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
—–
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
—–
03/20.04.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, this writ petition is heard for final disposal.
3. The petitioner, by instituting this writ petition, seeks following
reliefs:
“(i) An appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ
of Mandamus, be not issued directing Respondents to
immediately and forthwith process the application of refund
filed by petitioner dated 27.05.2017 (Annexure-2) pertaining
to assessment order 2013-14 and, consequentially, refund
the amount of Rs.1,41,73,237/- to petitioner being the
admitted of excess tax paid by the petitioner.
(ii) Further appropriate writ/order/direction, including
Writ of Mandamus, be not issued directing Respondent-
authorities to pay interest upon the refund amount in terms
1
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
of statutory provisions of Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘JVAT Act,
2005‘ for short) which is due and payable to petitioner after
expiry of 60 days from the date of application for refund up
to the date of actual refund.
(iii) Further appropriate writ/order/direction, including
Writ of Declaration, be not issued declaring inter alia, that
action of Respondent-authorities in withholding due and
admitted amount amounting to Rs.1,41,73,237/- for the
assessment year 2013-14 is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g)
and 265 of the Constitution of India.”
4. By way of filing counter affidavit, the primary defence was taken
that an SLP had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
challenge this Court’s order dated 15.01.2024 passed in W.P. (T)
No. 3246 of 2020 and awaiting the outcome of this SLP, no refunds
were made.
5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out
that on 01.08.2025, even the SLP filed by the Revenue Department
has been dismissed. He submits that still the refunds are not being
made.
6. Learned counsel for the Revenue Department now submits that the
refunds are being processed and the same would be made. He
however submits that since the amount is large, the involvement of
Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, is
necessary. He submits that the Additional Commissioner’s post is
vacant and the Secretary of the said department has been deputed
as an observer for election duty in West Bengal. He therefore
submits that the refunds cannot presently be made.
7. The above reasons for denying or delaying the refunds are neither
legal nor satisfactory. Based on the above reasons, learned counsel
for the Revenue Department is unable to state the precise timeline
2
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
for the refunds. Therefore, we are constrained to pass this order
fixing the timeline for the refunds to be made.
8. The facts of this case are quite gross, and therefore, we are
surprised by the attitude of the Revenue Department in delaying
the refunds on a specious plea that the post is vacant or one of the
officials has been deputed on election duty. On this ground, the
functioning of the department cannot be stopped. In any event,
these are not reasons to delay the refunds, because delayed
refunds invariably accrue interest, which is again paid only from the
taxpayers’ money.
9. The officials, who are only the trustees, cannot delay such matters
on the grounds now raised, simply because there is no mechanism
to make them pay for the delay or to note such instances when
assessing their performance in service. As a routine, such reasons
or some equally frivolous reasons are cited to deny or delay
refunds.
10. Surely, if one of the posts is vacant or one of the officials is sent on
deputation for election duty, there would be others holding the
charge. The business of the Revenue Department cannot come to a
grinding halt for the reasons now cited. This is more so considering
the gross facts of the present case.
11. In this case, vide our order dated 04.01.2017, a refund of Rs.
1,41,73,237/- was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, on
27.05.2017, applied for a refund of this amount. For almost 13
months, no action was taken on this application.
12. On 29.06.2017, the process for refund was initiated. On
07.12.2018, the refund application was forwarded to the next
higher officer for the refund of excess tax.
3
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
13. At this stage, on 13.03.2019, suo-moto revision proceedings were
initiated against the original assessment order by which the refund
was granted to the petitioner. On 25.04.2019, this revision was
disposed of, and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 4 to
pass a fresh assessment order.
14. The petitioner then instituted Revision Case No. RN30 of 2019
before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal to set aside the order dated
25.04.2019. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.02.2020, set
aside the order dated 25.04.2019, thereby reviving the original
order granting the refund to the petitioner.
15. The Revenue Department then filed W.P. (T) No. 3246 of 2020
before this Court to set aside the Tribunal’s order dated
28.02.2020. Vide order dated 15.01.2024, this Court dismissed
W.P. (T) No. 3246 of 2020 filed by the Revenue Department. At
least at this stage, the Revenue Department should have refunded
the amount to the petitioner.
16. However, the petitioner was once again forced to approach the
authorities for a refund along with interest. This the petitioner did
vide representation dated 25.04.2024. Since there was no
response, the petitioner again filed representations dated
03.06.2024, 18.11.2024 & 05.02.2025. Despite all these reminders,
the refund was not granted, and the petitioner was forced to
institute the present writ petition. Significantly, at that stage, the
excuses now being given were unavailable.
17. As noted earlier, the only defence raised in this writ petition is that
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 61037 of 2024 was filed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge this Court’s order
dated 15.01.2024. Now, it is admitted that vide order dated
01.08.2025, this SLP has been dismissed.
4
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
18. At least after the SLP was dismissed, the Revenue Department
should have immediately refunded the amount to the petitioner.
Now, a specious plea is raised about the non-filling of the vacancy
of the concerned official and the deputation of the Secretary of the
said department on election duty. Both these defences are frivolous
and therefore rejected.
19. Section 52 of the JVAT Act, 2005 deals with the issue of refund and
Section 55 deals with the provision for payment of interest on
delayed refund. Both these provisions are transcribed below for
convenience of reference:
“Section 52- Refund:- (1) Subject to other provisions
of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the prescribed
authority shall, refund to a dealer the amount of tax, penalty
and interest, if any paid by such dealer in excess of the amount
due from him.
(2) Where any refund is due to any dealer according to return
furnished by him for any period, such refund may provisionally
be adjusted by him against the tax due or tax payable as per the
returns filed under Section 29 for any subsequent period in the
year:
Provided that, the amount of tax or penalty, interest or
sum forfeited or all of them due from, and payable by the dealer
on the date of such adjustment shall first be deducted from such
refund before adjustment.
Section 55- Interest:- (1) A registered dealer entitled
to refund in pursuance of any order under this Act (including
assessment under Section 35, Section 36 or Section 37) or in
pursuance of any order by any Court, shall be entitled to receive,
in addition to the refund, simple interest at the rate of six
percent per annum for the period commencing after ninety days
of the application claiming refund in pursuance to such order till
the date on which the refund in granted.”
20. Considering the above provisions and the gross facts of this case,
we direct the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, to ensure that the petitioner is
refunded the amount of Rs. 1,41,73,237/- with interest @ 6% per
annum commencing after 90 days of the petitioner’s first
5
2026:JHHC:11407-DB
application claiming refund in pursuance of the order dated
04.01.2017. This amount must be computed and actually refunded
to the petitioner on or before 05.05.2026 without giving any
excuses.
21. If the aforesaid amount is not refunded by this date, the interest
for the further period shall have to be paid personally by the
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, and such amount should then be deducted
from his/her salary.
22. Besides, this is a fit case in which this order should be brought to
the notice of the Principal Accountant General and the Chief
Secretary, State of Jharkhand, so that steps can be taken to ensure
that such instances do not recur.
23. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms.
24. However, we direct the Registry to place the matter on 07.05.2026
‘High on Board’ to enable the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, to file a
compliance affidavit.
(M. S. SONAK, C.J.)
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)
20.04.2026
Satish/Vikas/
6