Calcutta High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March 2026

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS (Citations 1 to 172)GST 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 othersCitation: 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 CourtCase Title: Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 4The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a petitioner's mere apprehension of business loss in West Bengal is not enough to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition.A single-judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while dismissing a plea filed by a Kuwait company said that it is the infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a cause of action."The lis before this Court is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner's right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to the petitioner's apprehension of loss of business in West Bengal. In such a view of the matter, the petitioner's apprehension cannot form the basis of the writ petition in West Bengal", the bench said.Calcutta High Court Stays RCTC-Confluence Development Deal, Flags Lack Of Transparency & Material Changes In Supplementary AgreementCase: SMITA BAJORIA VS RCTC ASSOCIATION AND ORSCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 5The Calcutta High Court has restrained the Royal Calcutta Turf Club (RCTC) and its office-bearers from giving effect to a supplementary development agreement dated September 20, 2025, holding that the plaintiff-member had made out a strong prima facie case of non-transparency and material alterations to the project without adequate disclosure to members.Justice Arindam Mukherjee found that the so-called “supplementary” agreement was prima facie not a mere continuation of the earlier 2022 development agreement, but introduced substantial changes in the nature and character of the project, ownership and developer allocations, security deposit terms, and even the composition of the developer LLP. The Court noted that one of the LLP partners had exited, yet the agreement was executed and registered during the pendency of earlier litigation involving the same developer.Bank Can't Freeze Company's Accounts Solely Over ROC's 'Management Dispute' Tag: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Ravindra Pratap and another vs Reserve Bank of India and othersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 6The Calcutta High Court has held that a...

Calcutta High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March 2026

Srinjoy Das