( 2026:JHHC:550-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 5917 of 2024 M/s Krishna Kant Prasad, a Proprietorship concern having its office at New Netaji Nagar, near Bhootnath Mandir, Kantatoli, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Lowar Bazaar, District- Ranchi, through its Proprietor Krishna Kant Prasad, aged about 68 years, son of Late Devanandan Lal, resident of New Netaji Nagar, near Bhoothnath Mandir, Kantatoli, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Lowar Bazar, District- Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Commissioner of the State Taxes, having its office Commercial Taxes and Excise Building, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, East Circle, Ranchi, having its office at Commercial Taxes Office, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, East Circle, Ranchi having its office at Commercial Taxes Office, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Ranchi Division, having its office at Commercial Taxes & Excise Building, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi. … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I --------- 05/Dated: 09.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We issue rule in this petition and make the rule returnable immediately with the consent of and the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the Appellate Authority’s order dated 04.06.2024 (page 61 and 62 of the paper book), inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner’s contention that the impugned order was never served upon the petitioner, has not been considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the limitation would commence from the date on which the impugned decision or order is communicated to such person. In this case, since there was no communication and no proof of communication has been produced, the Appellate Authority was not justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal by invoking the bar of limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that show-cause notice and other notices during the adjudication proceedings were duly served upon the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that there is no reason to accept that the ( 2026:JHHC:550-DB ) 2 impugned order was not served upon the petitioner. He submits that if an opportunity is granted, he will be in a position to adduce proof of service. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that the petitioner’s contention about non-communication of the impugned order has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. Only on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation or beyond the maximum delay condonation period, the appeal has been dismissed. 7. The petitioner’s contention about non-communication, whether correct or incorrect, was a vital contention that should have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Since the vital contention has not even been dealt with, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for deciding the matter afresh. The Appellate Authority must first consider the issue of the appeal being barred by limitation, which would include the contention about non-communication of the impugned order. Both the parties are permitted to file additional affidavits or documents in support of their respective versions on the aspect of non-service and issue of limitation. 8. The parties to appear before the Appellate Authority on 2nd of February, 2026 at 11.00 A.M and file an authenticated copy of this order. The Appellate Authority should fix a time schedule for disposal and shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within three months of the parties producing an authenticated copy of this order on 02.02.2026. 9. All contentions of the parties on the issue of limitation, including issue of service or non-service of the impugned order, are kept open to be decided by the Appellate Authority at the first instance. We have not gone into those issues because we think that these issues should have been considered by the Appellate Authority at the first instance and they are not considered. 10. The rule is made absolute to the above extent without any order for costs. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order. 11. Interim application (I.A. No. 5067/2025) does not survive and it is disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) January 09, 2026 Ranjeet/R.Kr. Uploaded on 10.01.2026