M/S. Rungta Mines LTD., Thro Its Deputy General Manager-Tax Cum Authorized, Sakaldev Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand, Through Its Chief Secretary

Facts

M/s. Rungta Mines Limited (the petitioner) applied to the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Chaibasa Circle (the 4th respondent) for SGST paid certificates for the periods 2023-24 and 2024-25. These certificates are required to avail benefits under the Jharkhand Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2021. The petitioner's grievance is that the certificates have not been issued, nor have they been informed of any reasons for the delay or non-issuance. The petitioner made representations on 30.05.2024 and 09.10.2025, and filed a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Cell on 12.06.2024. Despite these actions, no certificate has been issued, and no reasons have been provided.

Held

The Court directed the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, to dispose of the petitioner's applications dated 30.05.2024 and 09.10.2025 in accordance with law and on their merits, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, leaving all such contentions open. The operative direction was to ensure the disposal of the applications. No specific finding was made on the entitlement to the certificates, only on the need for the authority to act upon the applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, is obligated to issue SGST paid certificates to the petitioner for the periods 2023-24 and 2024-25, as required for availing benefits under the Jharkhand Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2021, and to communicate the reasons for any delay or non-issuance. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they have applied for the necessary certificates and have made multiple representations and a grievance complaint. They argued that the authorities have failed to issue the certificates or provide any reasons for the inaction, which is causing prejudice to their ability to avail policy benefits. They sought expeditious issuance of the certificates. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. It notes that the learned AC to AG was present and directed to communicate the order.