V RAVICHANDRAN K BHAWANI, ADARSH ILANGO, SOHINI BISWAS, DEB KUMAR BAWALI vs THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS — MAT /53/2026
Case under Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added Tax Regulation, 2017 Section NA. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCP0002882026
Next Hearing
16th March 2026
Filing Number
MAT /53/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
MAT /53/2026
Registration Date
13-03-2026
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
Petitioner(s)
V RAVICHANDRAN K BHAWANI, ADARSH ILANGO, SOHINI BISWAS, DEB KUMAR BAWALI
Respondent(s)
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (VAT)
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH , HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION | |
| 19-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary The High Court at Calcutta (Port Blair Bench) dismissed 51 intra-court appeals challenging a lower court's decision to transfer VAT assessment cases to an Appellate Tribunal rather than entertaining them as writ petitions. The court held that an adequate statutory alternative remedy exists under the VAT Regulation 2017, and therefore declined to exercise high prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court at Calcutta (Port Blair Bench) dismissed 51 intra-court appeals challenging a lower court's decision to transfer VAT assessment cases to an Appellate Tribunal rather than entertaining them as writ petitions. The court held that an adequate statutory alternative remedy exists under the VAT Regulation 2017, and therefore declined to exercise high prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts