Jharkhand High Court
Ms Tata Steel Ltd Through Its Chief Legal Corporate Services Namely Meena Lall v. Comercial Taxes
2026:JHHC:26146-DB · WPC/3884/2017
- Decision date
- 2026-08-31
- Text availability
- Full text
- Judges
- Rajesh Shankar
Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗
Connected provisions and cases
No further provision or case links are recorded.
Judgment text
( 2026:JHHC:26146-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 3884 of 2017 M/s Tata Steel Limited (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) having its registered office at Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001; having its Manufacturing Unit at Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Chief, Legal (Corporate Services) namely, Meena Lall, wife of Shri Behari Lall, resident of 2nd Floor, 'B' Block 228, GKI, P.O. and P.S. GK-I, New Delhi 110048. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary -cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi -834004, District Ranchi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, P.O. and P.S. - Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr Ranjit Kushwaha, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr Vibhor Mayank, AC to AG Mr Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA ----- 16 /Dated: 31.08.2026
1. Mr Gadodia, appears with Mr Ranjit Kushwaha, for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty as was granted in the order dated 31.08.2026 disposing of W.P.(T) No. 3776 of 2017 and connected matters. 2. Mr Gadodia submits that in this case, the matter had been remanded by a Coordinate Bench to the Assessing Officer inter alia to decide the issue of limitation. The Assessing Officer has ruled in favour of the petitioner and held that the assessment was barred by limitation. Therefore, the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition with liberty should any fresh cause of action accrue. 1 ( 2026:JHHC:26146-DB ) 3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the same liberty as was granted in the order dated 31.08.2026 disposing of W.P.(T) No. 3776 of 2017 and connected matters. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) August 31, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 1.9.2026 2