Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: January 2026

Nominal IndexS.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 1Shri Manoj Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 2Sajal Dutta v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 4SMITA BAJORIA VS RCTC ASSOCIATION AND ORS Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 5Ravindra Pratap and another vs Reserve Bank of India and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 6OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patent Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 7Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 8 Dr. Soma Mandal Debnath v. Sri Tanmoy Debnath Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 9Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 10Piyali Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 11Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 12Ratan Karmakar & Ors. v. Smt. Chaina Das & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 13Bikash Rath & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 14Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 15Debanjan Guha v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 16Jhantu Sarkar v Union of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 18Basudeb Bagchi v ED Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 19Nishikanta Hawladar & Soumen Mondal v State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 20Humayun Kabir vs. State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 21Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v Archana Debnath Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 22BABULAL JADAB v STATE Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 23Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew v The State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 24Lt. Gen. Dr. Subrata Saha v Union of Indian and Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 25Child in conflict with law v The State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 26New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society Limited v Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 27Atasi Ghosh v State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 28ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSGST Registration Cancellation Unsustainable When Hearing & Decision Were Made By Different Authorities: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: S.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 1The Calcutta High Court held that a GST registration cancellation order is unsustainable where the personal hearing is granted by one authority, but the final order is passed by another. Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that, interestingly, while the notice for personal hearing was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Burrabazar Division, but the order impugned has been passed by the Superintendent. The order therefore defies the very well-settled principle that an order must be passed by the authority that hears the parties or that one who hears must decide.Inadvertently Uploading Incorrect Document For E-Auction Cannot Justify Forfeiture Of Deposit Without Intent To Mislead: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Shri Manoj Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 2The Calcutta High Court has ruled that forfeiture of earnest money deposit (EMD) under the Railway e-auction framework cannot be sustained merely on the ground of an inadvertent or clerical mistake in uploading documents, unless the authorities first record a finding that the bidder acted with an intent to mislead.Holding that forfeiture is penal in nature and entails serious civil consequences, Justice Smita Das De quashed the Railways' decision to forfeit ₹7,45,321 from the petitioner, observing that such action must satisfy the tests of proportionality, fairness and mens rea.RBI Can Permit Share Allotment Against Second-Hand Imported Capital Equipment On Non-Repatriation Basis: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Sajal Dutta v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3The Calcutta High Court held that the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) is empowered under the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973) to permit allotment of shares to an NRI against the import of second-hand capital equipment on a non-repatriation basis.Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya stated that the RBI, while allowing the permission, also relied upon the Government of India letter dated 03.01.1994 wherein the Central Government issued policy directive that in such a case, as arose for consideration herein, where the amount is directly paid by the NRI for importing second-hand capital goods, the investment was permissible only on a non-repatriable basis.Mere Apprehension of Business Loss In State Does Not Confer Writ Court Territorial Jurisdiction: Calcutta High...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: January 2026

Srinjoy Das

Tags