In Jharkhand, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Has Jurisdiction To Try Trademark Infringement Suits Valued Between ₹3 Lakh & ₹1 Crore: High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that in the State of Jharkhand, where the pecuniary value of a commercial dispute is between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) designated as a Commercial Court has the jurisdiction to try a trademark infringement suit. A Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held so while allowing a commercial appeal filed by M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against a 2024 order of the Civil Judge (Sr....

If SCN Is Issued Without GST Authority's Signature, Demand Order Can't Be Saved Even If It Is Signed: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that an order raising GST demand cannot be saved even if it is properly authenticated by the issuing authority, if the show cause notice preceding it was not signed.A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar was dealing with a Petitioner's grievance that Form GST DRC-01A issued to him under section 73(1) of the Jharkhand GST Act was not signed by the authority.For context, Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause...

Sale Of Goods At Concessional Rates Alone Does Not Constitute A Sham Transaction: Jharkhand High Court Quashes SCN

The Jharkhand High Court stated that sale of goods at concessional rates alone does not constitute a sham transaction. The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that “notices under Section 61 have been issued to assessees and instead of pointing out discrepancies in the returns filed by assessees, the competent officer has embarked upon an exercise of comparing the price at which assessees have sold their stone-boulders/stone-chips with...

Jharkhand HC Quashes Provisions Of RTE Amendment Rules Levying Inspection Fee, Security Deposit On Private Schools

The Jharkhand High Court has partly allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2019. The Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions requiring private schools to pay application and inspection fees and to maintain a security deposit for recognition, holding that the State lacked legal authority under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, the Court upheld the...

Court Cannot Set Aside Entire Arbitral Award Due To Fraud In One Claim When Other Claims Rest On Different Grounds: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar has held that when two claims decided in an arbitral award are mutually unrelated, the court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), cannot set aside the entire arbitral award solely because a fraud was committed concerning one of the claims, while the other claims are based on entirely different reasoning and grounds. Brief Facts: On 29.01.2011,...

Jharkhand HC Quashes ITAT Relief To Assessee For Relying On Overruled Precedent In TDS Default Case, Remands Matter For Fresh Adjudication

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, after finding that it was solely based on a precedent that had been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had earlier deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the payments in question had already been made. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar...

Interest Of 18% Can't Be Claimed In Arbitrations Commencing Before 2015 Amendment, When Award Specifies Particular Rate: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that interest at the default rate of 18% under unamended Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be claimed when the arbitral proceedings commenced before the 2015 amendment and the parties have not agreed to apply the amended provision. In such cases, the unamended provision applies, and only the interest specified in the award is...

GST Authorities Can't Deny Refund Of Pre-Deposit On Grounds Of Limitation, Violates Article 265: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained...

Delay Of 17 Months In Filing Appeal Not Condonable U/S 107 Of CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Registration

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we...

Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues. The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.In the words of the Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice MS Ramachadran Rao...

Pendency Of Proceedings Before Competent Authority Under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act Will Not Affect Application U/S 11 Of A&C Act: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator if there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties. Facts The Applicant and the deceased ...

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess

The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.Finding that the refund was denied by the State on 'extraneous grounds', the division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice...