M/S Kedarnath Trexim Private Limited Through One Of Its Directors Raaj Jaiswal vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Held
The Court held that the contempt case had become infructuous. Based on the statement made by the petitioner's counsel, the Court found no necessity to proceed further with the contempt proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt case. The reasoning for the case becoming infructuous is not elaborated upon in the judgment. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied in arriving at this decision, as the matter was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the contempt case.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Kedarnath Trexim Private Limited, filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 395 of 2025 before the Jharkhand High Court against the State of Jharkhand and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST. The contempt case was initiated presumably due to non-compliance with a previous order or direction by the revenue authorities. The specific details of the original order or the alleged contemptuous act are not recorded in this judgment. The matter was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 395 of 2025 has become infructuous, thereby warranting its dismissal? Petitioner's Argument: The counsel for the petitioner stated before the Court that the contempt case has become infructuous. No further arguments or reliance on specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the petitioner. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand or the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, other than their appearance through counsel. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain their contentions or any authorities/precedents they may have relied upon.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 395 of 2025 M/S. KEDARNATH TREXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its unit at Plot No.: 492, 493A, 494A, 485, Mushlewa, Saraikela-Kharsawan, through one of its Directors Raaj Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, son of Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal, resident of 3B Jyoti Apartment, Road No.: 2, Contractors Area, Bistupur, Opposite Sonnet Hotel, P.O.: Bistupur & P.S.: Sakchi, Bistupur, Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum-831001 (Jharkhand).
... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
SRI D. SAMANT RAY, aged about: Not Known, son of: Not Known, working for gain as The Assistant Commissioner, Division-1, Admn: Centre, Central Goods and Services Tax, having its office at Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.: Bistupur, Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum-831001 (Jharkhand)
… … ... Opposite Parties
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Ad
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.