Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: April 07 - April 13, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 26 To 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

NOMINAL INDEX

Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

M/s Bodhraj Construction v. Snehanshu Sinha 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

Nirmala College vs .State of Jharkhand and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The State of Jharkhand Secretary and Ors vs Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

Orders/Judgements

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess

Case title: Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.

The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.

Finding that the refund was denied by the State on 'extraneous grounds', the division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan also ordered the company be paid stipulated interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Pendency Of Proceedings Before Competent Authority Under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act Will Not Affect Application U/S 11 Of A&C Act: Jharkhand HC

Case Title – M/s Bodhraj Construction v. Snehanshu Sinha

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator if there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties.

Jharkhand State Universities Act | Prior JPSC Approval Must To Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Teacher: High Court

Case Title: Nirmala College vs .State of Jharkhand and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The Jharkhand High Court has held that under the first proviso to Section 57A(1) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the governing body of a minority-affiliated college must obtain prior approval from the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a teacher.

It ruled that disciplinary proceedings carried out without such approval are invalid and that post facto approval cannot cure this defect.

Jharkhand HC Rejects State's Plea Against Quashing Of Executive Order Barring Society From Registering Land Despite Final Decree, Fines ₹50K

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand Secretary and Ors vs Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed state government's appeal against a single judge's decision which had quashed an executive order restricting a cooperative society from registering a land despite a civil court decree in the latter's favour which had attained finality.

In doing so the court said that the civil court decree will not be set aside merely because the State claims that there was a forgery in the revenue records. It thus imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the State.

Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues.

The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.