Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri B. Nagendar,

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/14/2000HC TelanganaHBHC01005208200001 December 20112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Jharkhand High Court observed that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing their petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions for want of appearance and prosecution.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s Bihar Coke Produce Co. and M/s Kejriwal Brothers, failed to appear for multiple hearings of their tax cases. Despite repeated calls on the day of the hearing, no one appeared on their behalf.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the tax petitions by the petitioners due to their consistent absence from hearings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2025:JHHC:37698 Page 1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Tax Case No. 14 of 2000 (R) M/s Bihar Coke Produce Co., at Thana Road, P.O. P.S. Jharia District : Dhanbad, through its one of the partner Sri Shiv Kumar Kejriwal, Son of Late Shankarlal Kejriwal, resident of Thana Road, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District : Dhanbad-828111

... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Dhanbad.

… … ... Respondent

With

Tax Case No. 41 of 1998 (R) M/s Kejriwal Brothers, at Thana Road, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District : Dhanbad, through its one of the partner Sri Shiv Kumar Kejriwal, Son of Late Shankarlal Kejriwal, resident of Thana Road, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District : Dhanbad-828111

... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Central Revenue Building, Beerchand Patel Marg P.O. G.P.O. , Patna, P.S. Kotwali- Patna, PIN 800001

… … ... Respondent

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

--------- For the Petitioners : None For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr.S.C.

Mr. Anurag Vijay, Sr.S.C.

--------- 10/Dated: 16.12.2025 1) It appears that the petitioners are not interested to proceed in the instant lis as is evident from the fact that in the initial hearings held at different occasions from 2005 to 2011, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners to pursue these petitions and thereafter from the year 2017 the petitioners only prayed for adjournment as is evident from the order sheets.

2025:JHHC:37698 Page 2 of 2

2) Even today, despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners which clearly goes to indicate that they are not interested to pursue these petitions. 3) Finally, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss these petitions for want of appearance and prosecution. Ordered accordingly.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) NAFR Sharda/MM 16/12/2025 Cp.02

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →