Birla Institute of Technology (Bit), Mesra, Rep. through Acting Registrar Namely Dr. Sudip Das Vs the State of Jharkhand Rep. through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Dept.

¶1

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 374 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 375 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 476 of 2026

¶3

Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), Mesra, having its office at Mesra, PO-Mesra, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi, represented through Acting Registrar namely, Dr. Sudip Das, S/o Dipak Kumar Das, R/o Qr. No. BII/7, BIT Mesra, PO-Mesra, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

[In all the cases]

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand represented through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi represented through Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶10

The Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶11

The Deputy Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶12

... … Respondents [In all the cases]

¶13

-----

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (Through online mode) Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I For the Respondent-RMC : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 10.03.2026

¶16

W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026

¶17

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. The challenge in this petition is to the notice/order/letter No. 230 dated 12.11.2025 issued by the 5^th respondent – the Deputy Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, raising a demand of Rs. 25,29,192 towards holding tax for the Financial Year 1^st quarter 2018-19 to 4^th quarter 2025-26.

¶19

¶20

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶21

3. The record shows that the petitioner addressed several representations to the Administrator/Commissioner of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) seeking a reconsideration of the demand. The petitioner pointed out that it was an educational institution operating on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis and not a coaching class. Therefore, it was urged that, when assessing the holding tax, the multiplier of 1.5 would not apply, and instead the multiplier of 0.5 would apply to the petitioner.

¶22

4. Mr Shashank Shekhar learned counsel for the respondent – RMC, submitted that the documents to the effect that the petitioner was an educational institute operating on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis were supplied only on 19.11.2024. These documents were placed before the Monitoring-cum-Core Committee on 04.03.2025. Upon considering the documents placed, this committee approved the application of the multiplier of 0.5 for the 4^th quarter of the Financial Year 2024-25.

¶23

5. Mr Shekhar submitted that since no documents were produced in respect of the prior period, the petitioner was not treated as a charitable institution or an institution to which the multiplier of 0.5 would apply. He further pointed out that the petitioner had paid holding tax, assessed at a 1.5 multiplication factor from 2004 to 2017, without protest. For all these reasons, Mr Shashank Shekhar submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order/demand.

¶24

6. By way of rejoinder, Mr Sinha submitted that the earlier payments were made under protest and without prejudice. There was no waiver. In any event, there can be no waiver in such matters

¶25

¶26

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶27

because the RMC can never recover any tax without the authority of the law, given the Constitutional scheme under Article 265.

¶28

7. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the RMC also urges the same grounds, now articulated by Mr Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the RMC. In addition, paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit states that this petition may not be entertained because the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

¶29

8. Regarding this, Mr Shashank Shekhar referred to Section 167 of the said Act, which provides for a review at the instance of the person who is dissatisfied with the amount assessed upon him or the valuation or assessment of any holding, or who disputes his occupation of any holding, or his liability to be assessed.

¶30

9. Since an objection was raised regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, we made an order on 05.02.2026 requiring the respondents to clarify the position regarding the availability of alternate remedies, particularly under Sections 153 and 169 of the said Act.

¶31

10. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III, submitted that though no affidavit was being filed, the Government Notification dated 23.01.2018 makes it clear that the provisions of Sections 153 and 169 of the said Act are already repealed. Thus, those provisions can no longer be relied upon to support the plea of an alternate remedy.

¶32

11. Mr Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the RMC, however, submitted that the petitioner can always apply under Section 167 of

¶33

¶34

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶35

the said Act to the Municipal Commissioner, and if such an application is made, there is no reason to assume that the same will not be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

12. In the present case, the RMC has already granted the petitioner relief effective from the 4^th quarter of the Assessment Year 2024-25. Therefore, the only question is whether such relief should be granted for the past period as well. For this, the Municipal Commissioner will have to verify whether during the past period for which the demand is now raised, the petitioner was indeed a charitable institution operating as an educational institute on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis.

¶37

13. The circumstance that proof was produced only later can, at the highest, be only one of the circumstances, but not the conclusive circumstance. The RMC has not produced any material to suggest that, for the past period, the petitioner was operating coaching classes and, in that sense, was not an educational institute operating on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis.

¶38

14. Therefore, it is only appropriate that a full opportunity be given to all parties to present their respective versions before the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner will have to review the impugned notice of demand by exercising the power under Section 167 of the said Act.

¶39

15. The record shows that the petitioner had already addressed several representations to the Administrator/Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for reconsideration, and the same have not been disposed of. Such representations were well within the period

¶40

¶41

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶42

of limitation prescribed under Section 167 of the said Act. In any event, since this matter was pending before this Court and the petitioner is now being relegated to avail of the alternate remedy based upon an objection raised on behalf of the RMC, it is only appropriate that the Municipal Commissioner reconsiders the matter on the merits without adverting to the issue of limitation.

¶43

16. The Municipal Commissioner, RMC, is therefore directed to treat this petition and the various representations annexed to it as the petitioner’s review petition and to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this order. In addition, if the petitioner wishes to file any further documents, it may do so within 10 days from the date of uploading of this order. The RMC is also at liberty to place for the consideration of the Municipal Commissioner all the material it desires to rely upon, after furnishing advance copies to the Petitioner. The material produced by both parties must be considered on the merits by the Municipal Commissioner when disposing of the review.

¶44

17. The impugned demand notice had called upon the petitioner to pay the demanded holding tax within 7 days, failing which, the RMC had stated that it would initiate proceedings under Section 184 of the said Act for recovery of the amount. Initiation of such a proceeding would obviously take more than two months. Therefore, we expect that until the review petition is disposed of on merits and the decision thereon is communicated to the petitioner, no precipitative/coercive step should be taken for enforcing the

¶45

¶46

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶47

impugned demand notice.

¶48

18. At the same time, we note that the petitioner’s case was not that no holding tax is payable but that such tax should be assessed by applying the multiplier of 0.5. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the petitioner pays the undisputed holding tax by applying the multiplier of 0.5 to the RMC.

¶49

19. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that such undisputed tax would be paid to the RMC within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. This statement is accepted, and the petitioner must comply with it.

¶50

20. At this stage, we do not propose to address the rival contentions, including the contention regarding payment between 2004 and 2017 and its legal effect. All contentions of all parties are left open for the Municipal Commissioner to decide. But we expect the Municipal Commissioner to decide the review, uninfluenced by earlier decisions and considering any material produced by both parties. The Municipal Commissioner should also afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass and communicate a reasoned decision.

¶51

21. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs.

¶52

W.P.(T) No. 374 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 375 of 2026 With W.P.(T) No. 476 of 2026

¶53

22. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the order made in W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 will govern the present petitions.

¶54

¶55

 2026:JHHC:6246-DB

¶56

23. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the parties and the issues involved in these petitions are the same as those in W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026, but only the holding numbers and consequently, the numbers of impugned notices and the demands raised therein differ.

¶57

24. Since the issue in W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 is the same as that in the present petitions, we dispose of these three petitions by adopting the reasoning and directions in the order disposing of W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026.

¶58

25. The directions issued in the above order disposing of W.P.(T) No. 373 of 2026 will, mutatis mutandis, now apply to these three petitions as well. By issuing such directions, therefore, we dispose of these petitions.

¶59

26. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶60

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶61

March 10, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R

¶62

Uploaded on 11.03.2026

¶63

Birla Institute of Technology (Bit), Mesra, Rep. through Acting Registrar Namely Dr. Sudip Das v. the State of Jharkhand Rep. through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birla Institute of Technology (Bit), Mesra, Rep. through Acting Registrar Namely Dr. Sudip Das v. the State of Jharkhand Rep. through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marwari Kanwar Sangh Dharamshala through Its Chairman Mahabir Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S. Auto Profiles Limited, through Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Prabir Kumar Dey Vs Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department Vs Bikram Mandal

Birla Institute of Technology (Bit), Mesra, Rep. through Acting Registrar Namely Dr. Sudip Das Vs the State of Jharkhand Rep. Thr. the Pr. Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Dept.

Birla Institute of Technology (Bit), Mesra, Represented Thro Acting Registrar Namely Dr. Sudip Das Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented Thro the Pr. Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department

Manoj Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand