Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: April 14 - 20, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 31 To 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 35NOMINAL INDEXM/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 31Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni Madyan 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 32M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 33The State of Jharkhand vs The State of Jharkhand 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 34Sitaram Goswami vs Shanti Devi and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 35Orders/JudgementsDelay Of 17 Months In Filing Appeal Not Condonable U/S 107 Of CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Cancellation Of RegistrationCase Title: M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of IndiaLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 31The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we are having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file its return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand, petitioner-Firm filed appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of almost 17 months which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.”Insurer Company Can't Deny Liability Solely On Basis Of Incorrect Policy Number Furnished By Claimants: Jharkhand High Court Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni MadyanLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 32The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that the liability of an insurance company cannot be negated solely on the ground that the claimants have furnished an incorrect policy number, particularly when the insurer fails to discharge its duty to produce the correct policy in support of its case. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, stated, “Merely providing a wrong policy number by the claimants, liability of the insurance company cannot be ruled out because the claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number and they have gathered the same from somewhere and produced it before the learned Tribunal.”GST Authorities Can't Deny Refund Of Pre-Deposit On Grounds Of Limitation, Violates Article 265: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 33The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained neither by the State, nor by the Centre, that too by taking aid of a provision which on the face of it is directory, inasmuch as, the language couched in Section 54 is 'may make an application before the expiry of 2 years from the relevant date.'”Writ Petition By One State Department Against Another Not Maintainable: Jharkhand HC Rejects Plea Against Recognition Of 'Tamaria' As STCase Title: The State of Jharkhand vs The State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 34The Jharkhand High Court has recently dismissed a plea against the Caste Scrutiny Committee report through which the “Tamaria” caste has been accepted as a sub-caste of the Munda caste and therefore brought under the Scheduled Tribe category. In doing so, the Court held that a writ petition filed by one department of the State against another department of the same State is not maintainable.Mere Lack Of Property Description Or Proximity Of Testator's Death To Date Of Execution Of Will Not Sufficient To Invalidate Will: Jharkhand HCCase Title: Sitaram Goswami vs Shanti Devi and OrsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 35The Jharkhand High Court has clarified in a recent judgement that suspicion surrounding the execution of a will cannot rest on vague claims. The Court also said that the validity of a will cannot be questioned merely because the testator passed away shortly after its execution or because the Will lacks specific property descriptions.Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, stated, “What circumstances would be regarded as suspicious cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each ...

Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: April 14 - 20, 2025

Bhavya Singh

Tags