Jharkhand High Court
M/S Tripati Ispat Udyog vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:11031-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 2212 of 2024
M/s TRIPATI ISPAT UDYOG, a proprietorship firm, having its principal
place of business at Plot no. 5290, Bara Bandh Road, Chas, P.O. and P.S.-
Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand, through its proprietor Ramesh Kumar
Agarwal, aged about 58 years, son of Late Radha Kishan Agarwal, resident
of Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O & P.S- Chas, District: Bokaro.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S:-Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes
Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. Special Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro, having
its office at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.-Bokaro, District:-Bokaro.
6. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro,
having its office at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.-Bokaro, District:-
Bokaro
7. State Tax officer, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro, having its office at Bokaro
Steel City, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro, District:-Bokaro
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner: Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
---------
08 /Dated: 09.04.2025
1. Heard both sides.
2. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment dt.
05.09.2022 in W.P.(T) No. 2972 of 2021.
-1 of 2-
2025:JHHC:11031-DB
3. Therefore, for the reasons alike and since there is no material in the
instant case placed by the respondents to show that the impugned order dt.
24.09.2020 was ever served on the petitioner, or that the relied upon
documents were ever supplied to the petitioner, or a personal hearing was
ever provided to the petitioner, and since the impugned order came to be
passed during the COVID-19 Pandemic, the impugned order dt. 24.09.2020
passed by the 7th respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the 7th respondent for fresh consideration. Consequently, GST DRC-07
(Annexure-10) issued by the 7th respondent is also set aside.
4. The 7th respondent shall issue a fresh notice of hearing to the
petitioner; on receipt of the said notice the petitioner shall submit a reply
thereto within four weeks of receipt of such notice; a personal hearing shall
be afforded to the petitioner by the 7th respondent, and then reasoned order
shall be passed by the 7th respondent in accordance with law and
communicated to the petitioner.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
APK/VK
-2 of 2-
