M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, THROUGH ITS PROJECT OFFICER SRI ANUGRAHA NARAYAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
WPC/3148/2026 · 2026-05-13
Rajesh Shankar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12061 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12061 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:14559-DB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No.3148 of 2026 ----- M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Sirka Colliery, Argada Area, through its Project Officer, Sri Anugraha Narayan Singh, s/o Prayag Singh, R/o Argada Area, P.O. and P.S. Argada, District- Ramgarh.
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner of State Tax, Excise Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi.
3. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
.......... Respondents. -----
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Priety Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. -----
Order No.02
Date: 13.05.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner challenges the demand notice no.4549 dated 18th February, 2009 for payment of electricity duty to the extent of Rs.5,33,943/-.
3. The argument is that a revision is already pending, questioning this demand. There is no statement that any interim relief has been granted in such revision.
4. As such, there is no justification not to honour the demand.
5. Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same without any order for costs.
6. However, if the petitioner wishes to have some interim order concerning this demand, then, it is only appropriate that the petitioner pays the disputed amount without prejudice to its
2026:JHHC:14559-DB 2
rights and contentions in the pending revision. If such amount is paid within four weeks, the respondents must accept the same and such payment will abide by the final orders in the revision which is pending.
7. However, if within four weeks, no payment is made, then, the respondents would be at liberty to enforce the demand in accordance with law.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 13th May, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 14.05.2026