[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Birla Institute Of Technology (Bit) vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026
With
W.P.(T) No. 374 of 2026
With
W.P.(T) No. 375 of 2026
With
W.P.(T) No. 476 of 2026
Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), Mesra, having its office at Mesra,
PO-Mesra, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi, represented through Acting
Registrar namely, Dr. Sudip Das, S/o Dipak Kumar Das, R/o Qr. No.
BII/7, BIT Mesra, PO-Mesra, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
[In all the cases]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand represented through the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi represented through
Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi
3. Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi
4. The Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi
... ... Respondents
[In all the cases]
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
(Through online mode)
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
For the Respondent-RMC : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
-----
Order No. 03 Dated: 10.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the notice/order/letter No. 230
dated 12.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent - the Deputy
Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, raising a
demand of Rs. 25,29,192 towards holding tax for the Financial Year
1st quarter 2018-19 to 4th quarter 2025-26.
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
3. The record shows that the petitioner addressed several
representations to the Administrator/Commissioner of the Ranchi
Municipal Corporation (RMC) seeking a reconsideration of the
demand. The petitioner pointed out that it was an educational
institution operating on a 'no profit no loss' basis and not a coaching
class. Therefore, it was urged that, when assessing the holding tax,
the multiplier of 1.5 would not apply, and instead the multiplier of
0.5 would apply to the petitioner.
4. Mr Shashank Shekhar learned counsel for the respondent - RMC,
submitted that the documents to the effect that the petitioner was
an educational institute operating on a 'no profit no loss' basis were
supplied only on 19.11.2024. These documents were placed before
the Monitoring-cum-Core Committee on 04.03.2025. Upon
considering the documents placed, this committee approved the
application of the multiplier of 0.5 for the 4th quarter of the Financial
Year 2024-25.
5. Mr Shekhar submitted that since no documents were produced in
respect of the prior period, the petitioner was not treated as a
charitable institution or an institution to which the multiplier of 0.5
would apply. He further pointed out that the petitioner had paid
holding tax, assessed at a 1.5 multiplication factor from 2004 to
2017, without protest. For all these reasons, Mr Shashank Shekhar
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order/demand.
6. By way of rejoinder, Mr Sinha submitted that the earlier payments
were made under protest and without prejudice. There was no
waiver. In any event, there can be no waiver in such matters
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
because the RMC can never recover any tax without the authority of
the law, given the Constitutional scheme under Article 265.
7. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the RMC also urges the same
grounds, now articulated by Mr Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel
for the RMC. In addition, paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit states
that this petition may not be entertained because the petitioner has
an efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of the
Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Act").
8. Regarding this, Mr Shashank Shekhar referred to Section 167 of the
said Act, which provides for a review at the instance of the person
who is dissatisfied with the amount assessed upon him or the
valuation or assessment of any holding, or who disputes his
occupation of any holding, or his liability to be assessed.
9. Since an objection was raised regarding the availability of an
alternate remedy, we made an order on 05.02.2026 requiring the
respondents to clarify the position regarding the availability of
alternate remedies, particularly under Sections 153 and 169 of the
said Act.
10. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III, submitted that though no
affidavit was being filed, the Government Notification dated
23.01.2018 makes it clear that the provisions of Sections 153 and
169 of the said Act are already repealed. Thus, those provisions can
no longer be relied upon to support the plea of an alternate remedy.
11. Mr Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the RMC, however,
submitted that the petitioner can always apply under Section 167 of
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
the said Act to the Municipal Commissioner, and if such an
application is made, there is no reason to assume that the same will
not be considered in accordance with law.
12. In the present case, the RMC has already granted the petitioner
relief effective from the 4th quarter of the Assessment Year 2024-25.
Therefore, the only question is whether such relief should be
granted for the past period as well. For this, the Municipal
Commissioner will have to verify whether during the past period for
which the demand is now raised, the petitioner was indeed a
charitable institution operating as an educational institute on a
'no profit no loss' basis.
13. The circumstance that proof was produced only later can, at the
highest, be only one of the circumstances, but not the conclusive
circumstance. The RMC has not produced any material to suggest
that, for the past period, the petitioner was operating coaching
classes and, in that sense, was not an educational institute
operating on a 'no profit no loss' basis.
14. Therefore, it is only appropriate that a full opportunity be given to
all parties to present their respective versions before the Municipal
Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner will have to review the
impugned notice of demand by exercising the power under Section
167 of the said Act.
15. The record shows that the petitioner had already addressed several
representations to the Administrator/Commissioner, Ranchi
Municipal Corporation, for reconsideration, and the same have not
been disposed of. Such representations were well within the period
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
of limitation prescribed under Section 167 of the said Act. In any
event, since this matter was pending before this Court and the
petitioner is now being relegated to avail of the alternate remedy
based upon an objection raised on behalf of the RMC, it is only
appropriate that the Municipal Commissioner reconsiders the matter
on the merits without adverting to the issue of limitation.
16. The Municipal Commissioner, RMC, is therefore directed to treat this
petition and the various representations annexed to it as the
petitioner's review petition and to dispose of the same on merits as
expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two
months from the date of uploading of this order. In addition, if the
petitioner wishes to file any further documents, it may do so within
10 days from the date of uploading of this order. The RMC is also at
liberty to place for the consideration of the Municipal Commissioner
all the material it desires to rely upon, after furnishing advance
copies to the Petitioner. The material produced by both parties must
be considered on the merits by the Municipal Commissioner when
disposing of the review.
17. The impugned demand notice had called upon the petitioner to pay
the demanded holding tax within 7 days, failing which, the RMC had
stated that it would initiate proceedings under Section 184 of the
said Act for recovery of the amount. Initiation of such a proceeding
would obviously take more than two months. Therefore, we expect
that until the review petition is disposed of on merits and the
decision thereon is communicated to the petitioner, no
precipitative/coercive step should be taken for enforcing the
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
impugned demand notice.
18. At the same time, we note that the petitioner's case was not that no
holding tax is payable but that such tax should be assessed by
applying the multiplier of 0.5. Therefore, it is only appropriate that
the petitioner pays the undisputed holding tax by applying the
multiplier of 0.5 to the RMC.
19. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that
such undisputed tax would be paid to the RMC within four weeks
from the date of uploading of this order. This statement is accepted,
and the petitioner must comply with it.
20. At this stage, we do not propose to address the rival contentions,
including the contention regarding payment between 2004 and
2017 and its legal effect. All contentions of all parties are left open
for the Municipal Commissioner to decide. But we expect the
Municipal Commissioner to decide the review, uninfluenced by
earlier decisions and considering any material produced by both
parties. The Municipal Commissioner should also afford the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass and communicate a
reasoned decision.
21. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for
costs.
With
With
22. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the order made in
W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 will govern the present petitions.
2026:JHHC:6246-DB
23. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the parties and the issues
involved in these petitions are the same as those in W.P.(T) No. 373
of 2026, but only the holding numbers and consequently, the
numbers of impugned notices and the demands raised therein
differ.
24. Since the issue in W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 is the same as that in the
present petitions, we dispose of these three petitions by adopting
the reasoning and directions in the order disposing of W.P.(T) No.
373 of 2026.
25. The directions issued in the above order disposing of W.P.(T) No.
373 of 2026 will, mutatis mutandis, now apply to these three
petitions as well. By issuing such directions, therefore, we dispose
of these petitions.
26. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
March 10, 2026
Manish/Ritesh
N.A.F.R
Uploaded on 11.03.2026
