M/S B.R.B.BAR AND RESTAURANT K.BHAWANI, ADARSH ILANGO, SOHINI BISWAS, DEB KUMAR BAWALI vs THE LT.GOVERNOR AND ORS. — MAT /28/2026

Case under Appeal Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Section NA. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCP0002422026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

12th March 2026

Filing Number

MAT /28/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

MAT /28/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH , HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH , HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

SALES TAX ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 15 OF LETTERS PATENT Section NA

Petitioner(s)

M/S B.R.B.BAR AND RESTAURANT K.BHAWANI, ADARSH ILANGO, SOHINI BISWAS, DEB KUMAR BAWALI

Respondent(s)

THE LT.GOVERNOR AND ORS.

THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER (VAT)

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH , HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

12-03-2026

FOR ADMISSION

19-03-2026

FOR ADMISSION

16-03-2026

FOR ADMISSION

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dismissed 51 appeals challenging VAT assessment notices, holding that an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists through the newly designated Appellate Tribunal and that the appellants cannot invoke writ jurisdiction after pursuing remedies under section 74. The court affirmed the single judge's decision that transferred pre-August 19, 2025 petitions to the Tribunal while dismissing later-filed petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dismissed 51 appeals challenging VAT assessment notices, holding that an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists through the newly designated Appellate Tribunal and that the appellants cannot invoke writ jurisdiction after pursuing remedies under section 74. The court affirmed the single judge's decision that transferred pre-August 19, 2025 petitions to the Tribunal while dismissing later-filed petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case