2026:JHHC:26168-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 6167 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 6110 of 2026 M/s. Basanti Mata Hard Coke Enterprises, through its partner Sri Deepak Kumar Lala, S/o Late Prabhat Kumar Lala, R/o Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner (in both cases) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner of State Tax, Excise Bhawan, Kanke Road, PO & PS-Gonda, District-Ranchi 3. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad 4. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad ... … Respondents (in both cases) ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Kumar Lala, Advocate Ms. Ayushri, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III [In W.P.(T) No. 6167/2026] Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. SC-I [In W.P.(T) No. 6110/2026] ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 31.08.2026 1. Heard Mr Pritam Kumar Lala, who appears with Ms Ayushri for the petitioner and Ms Rishi Bharati for the respondents in W.P.(T) No. 6167 of 2026 and Mr Ashok Kumar Yadav for the respondents in W.P.(T) No. 6110 of 2026. 2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the issues raised are substantially similar. 3. The petitioner in both these petitions challenges the demands made upon it for the relevant years under the 2026:JHHC:26168-DB 2 Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 4. Mr Pritam Kumar Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the lawyer for the petitioner was suffering from liver Cirrhosis and therefore, there may have been some default in attending to the matter or filing the relevant forms. He submitted that the representative of the petitioner-company is aged and should not be made to suffer due to the lawyer's ill-health. He submitted that the petitioner has not had any reasonable opportunity and, therefore, this is a fit case for interfering with the demand notices, as prayed for in these petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that several proceedings were taken to challenge the assessment orders and such challenges have failed. Accordingly, they submit that no petition would be maintainable and, in any event, no petition should be entertained solely to challenge the demand notices issued pursuant to the assessment orders, which have long since attained finality. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. The record shows that the assessment orders were made sometime in the year 2014 or thereabouts. To challenge the assessment orders, the petitioner has taken out all possible proceedings which include appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dhanbad 2026:JHHC:26168-DB 3 Division, Dhanbad, further revision before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi followed by a revision petition before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi. In one of the matters, an unsuccessful plea was made to refer the matter to this Court. 8. Admittedly, all the challenges to the assessment have failed. Consequently, there is no question of now entertaining a challenge to the demand notices which are only consequential in nature. Similarly, by challenging the demand notices, there is no question of the petitioner reopening the challenges to the assessment which were examined and turned down by practically all the authorities. 9. The contentions that the petitioner’s advocate was suffering from Cirrhosis and that the petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the ill-health of its lawyer, cannot be accepted. The ailment did not prevent the petitioner from filing the several proceedings referred to hereinabove. It is obvious that the petitioner's representative, by citing his age and the ill-health of his lawyer, is taking a chance to invoke the sympathy of this Court. Apart from the fact that we do not possess such jurisdiction, this is a matter of taxation, and this is certainly not a case where the petitioner- company was deprived of any reasonable opportunities which it has already exhausted. 10. For all the above reasons, we see no good ground to 2026:JHHC:26168-DB 4 entertain these petitions or interfere with the impugned demand notices. 11. However, the dismissal of these petitions is accompanied by liberty to resort to the alternate remedy by complying with the statutory prerequisites. All contentions of the parties are left open, should such remedy be invoked. 12. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with liberty and without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) August 31, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R Uploaded on 01.09.2026