Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 8 To October 15, 2023

Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 56

Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 57

Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58

Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59

Judgements/Orders This Week

‘Ingredients Of SC/ST Act Absent’: Jharkhand High Court Quashes FIR And Criminal Proceedings Against BJP Leader Pratul Shahdeo

Case Title: Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Pratul Shahdev for allegedly abusing his former driver. Shahdev was booked under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal code and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was alleged that he forcibly took away the car keys from his driver Mantu Kumar, locked the vehicle, and physically assaulted Kumar, causing injuries.

Assesse Failed To Appear Before Adjudicating Authority, No Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 56

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm engaged in civil contract work, challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Ranchi. The noted that the Assessee had been given ample opportunities to appear before the adjudicating authority. The court also highlighted that letters of personal hearing were sent to the Assessee at the address provided in their GST registration, as well as through email, however, these attempts were futile as the letters were returned undelivered and the Assessee did not respond to the emails.

Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner's Bail Plea Rejected By Jharkhand High Court In Army Land Sale Case

Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 57

The Jharkhand High Court last week rejected a bail petition of former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner, Chhavi Ranjan in the army land sale case. The former Deputy Commissioner had moved the high court seeking his release on the grounds of non-submission of the charge sheet within the stipulated time.

However, the court held that there was no irregularity on the part of the investigating agency in concluding the probe, as the charge sheet had already been filed, and hence, there was no valid ground for bail based on this argument.

No Reference Of Sexual Assault In Victim's Statement U/S 164 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58

The Jharkhand High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case stating that no evidence of sexual assault was found in the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, "It appears from the record that the statement of the girl, immediately after recovery, was recorded before the Magistrate. We after going through the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has found that there is no reference of commission of sexual assault. However, in course of trial, the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 1, on the Court query has deposed that she was subjected to sexual assault 2-3 times."

Wrong Collection Of TCS On Purchase Of Coal For Generation Of Power: Jharkhand High Court Directs Refund

Case Title: Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Tax Collected as Source (TCS) refund wrongfully collected despite verifying purchase of coal was used for generation of power. The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the root cause lies in the illegality committed by the Revenue in compelling Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) in effecting TCS qua the transactions of purchase of coal which according to the petitioner was genuinely used in generation of power. Such TCS was affected by Respondent CCL even though appropriate Form 27C was issued by the Petitioner with a verification that the goods so purchased would be used for the purposes of generation of power.