Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19901 (JHR)

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT v. RAJ KUMAR RAM

LPA/657/2023 · 2026-07-13

Rajesh Shankar

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:20674-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.657 of 2023 With I.A. No.11177 of 2023 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Utpad Bhawan, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. 4. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State Tax, Giridih Circle, P.O., P.S. & District-Giridih. .......... Appellants. -Versus- Raj Kumar Ram, son of Late Kanhai Ram, resident of Chandauri Road, Near Darshan Ayurved Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District-Giridih. .......... Respondent. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Ankit Kumar, G.P.-VI For the Respondent: ----- Order No.07 Date: 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.-VI for the applicants/appellants. 2. I.A. No.11177 of 2023 seeks condonation of delay of 290 days in instituting the accompanying appeal. 3. In paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7, there is a vague and casual reference to movement of files without giving any particulars whatsoever. Besides, mere movement of files from one table to other cannot be held to be a sufficient cause to explain the delay. 4. Accordingly, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown in this I.A. for condoning the delay in filing the 2026:JHHC:20674-DB 2 accompanying appeal. Even otherwise, we note that the learned single Judge in the impugned order has merely directed the appellants to take a decision in accordance with law on the petitioner’s claim for regularization after considering the facts involved in the petitioner’s case and determining whether the same is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. Nos.171 of 2021 and 121 of 2021. 5. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the I.A. seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and we hereby dismiss the same. 6. Consequently, the accompanying L.P.A. and any other I.As. therein, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 13th July, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 14.07.2026