(2026: JHHC:27554-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 3789 of 2017 M/s Imperial Fastners Private Limited (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) having its Works at Captive power Plant, P.O. Kathara, and P.S. Kathara, District Bokaro-829116 through its Chief Account Officer, namely, Raj Singh Chouhan, Son of Shri Hira Lal Chouhan, resident of 799/21, Manohar Nagar, Basai Road, P.O. and P.S. Gurgaon, District Gurgaon (Haryana) .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary -cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi -834004, District Ranchi 2. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad Division, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Town Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 3. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tenughat Circle, Phusro, P.O. and P.S. Phusro, District - Dhanbad ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Om Prakash Tiwary, G.P-III Mr Varun Prabhakar, A.C to G.P-III --------- 03 / Dated: 14.09.2026 1. Mr Sumeet Gadodia, who appears for the petitioner, submits that despite this Court’s order dated 01.09.2026 passed in connected writ petition W.P (C) No. 3070 of 2017, he has not been able to obtain any instructions from the petitioner regards the disposal of this petition. 2. We note that several similar matters have been withdrawn by the petitioners themselves with liberty to file appropriate proceedings if (2026: JHHC:27554-DB) 2 and when any cause of action arises. All contentions, including those raised in the petitions sought to be withdrawn were kept open. 3. The above orders were made because the petitioners had contended that no assessment orders for the concerned assessment years had been made within the period prescribed under section 3 of the Jharkhand Entry Tax (On Consumption or Use of Goods) Act, 2011 (Said Act). Even the Respondent State had not objected to the withdrawal of the petitions with liberty in the above terms. 4. We do not find any significant difference in the facts and circumstances in the present petition and the petitions which have been disposed of as withdrawn with liberty. Despite opportunities, no instructions have been obtained regards withdrawal. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if and when any fresh cause of action arises. All contentions of all parties, including those raised in the present petition are specifically left open. 6. Petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms. 7. I.A, if any in this petition, is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) September 14, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.09.2026