IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

MAT/18/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/S Aquays Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Vs

The Lt. Governor and others

With

MAT/19/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Rajadeepam

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/21/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Smti. K. Shobha

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/22/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Arasi

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/23/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Royal Petroleum

Vs.

2

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/24/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel A.T. Villa

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/28/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s B.R.B.Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/29/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Stalin Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/30/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Medival Islander Inn Bar

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/31/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Aparupa (A) Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

3

MAT/32/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Aparupa Sands Marina

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/33/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Jadwet Trading Company

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/34/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Southern Holdings and Investments (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/35/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Shri. Praveen

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/36/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Sentinel

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/37/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Dharma Cool Bar

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

4

With

MAT/38/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Smti. Usha Moorthy

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/39/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Welcomhotel Bay Island

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/40/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Shri. V.Karuppaiah

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/41/2026

M/s Seashell

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/42/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s APT Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/43/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Ashoka Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

5

With

MAT/44/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Purna Pushpawalli Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/45/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Excel Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and ors.

With

MAT/46/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Oriental Filling Station

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/47/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Manoj Marketing

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/48/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Sinclairs Hotel Ltd.

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/49/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

The Whistling Wood

6

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/50/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s G. International

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/51/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s G.M.S. Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/52/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

T. Kannan

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/53/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

V. Ravichandran

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Ors.

With

MAT/54/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Unique Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

7

MAT/55/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Holiday Inn

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/56/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Sarvottam(A) Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/57/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s TSG AQUA (TSG Bella Bay)

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/58/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s TSG Hotel and Resorts

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/59/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Silver Sand Neil

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/60/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Shri. K.V. Rama Rao

Vs.

8

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/61/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s CS Empire

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/62/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Smti. C. Kalaiarasi

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/63/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Hotel Raj Prakash

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/64/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Pearl Park Beach Resort

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/65/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

Shri. K.V.Narasimha Rao

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

9

MAT/66/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Annu Bar and Restaurant

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

With

MAT/68/2026

IA No. CAN/1/2026

M/s Pristine Beach Resort

Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others

For the appellant(s) : Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Adarsh Ilango

Ms. K. Bhawani

Ms. Sohini Biswas

For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Mr. S.Naidu

Heard on : March 18 & 19, 2026

Judgment delivered on : March 23, 2026

TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.

1. All the appeals have been taken up analogously for admission

hearing by consent of the parties, since the same originated from the

common judgement passed in a bunch of writ petitions by the learned

Single Judge.

2. The intra court appeals have been preferred against the judgment

and order dated February 10, 2026 passed by the learned Single Bench

wherein the learned Court was pleased to pass the following directions:

10

“61. I therefore direct that the records of all those writ petitions

out of the bunch of 47 petitions which have been heard, which

were filed prior to August 19, 2025, be transferred/transmitted

to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 73 of the

VAT Regulation, 2017. All those writ petitioners as well as the

respondents will be entitled to file additional pleadings before

the Tribunal. The Tribunal will decide those cases in accordance

with law. In respect of all those pre-August 19, 2025, cases, the

Tribunal will not insist on pre-deposit being made in terms of

section 76 of the VAT Regulation, 2017. The appeals will be

decided within the statutory framework in accordance with the

applicable laws, Rules and Regulations. The said writ petitions

will be treated as disposed of insofar as the records of this

Court are concerned.

62. The records of the following writ petitions will be

transferred/ transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal.

(i)

WPA/345/2025 (M/s. Seashell vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(ii)

WPA/391/2025 (Shri Praveen vs. The Lt. Governor

and others).

(iii)

WPA/392/2025 (Shri M/s Sinclairs Hotel Limited vs.

The Lt. Governor and others).

(iv)

WPA/393/2025 ( Smt Kalaiarasi vs. The Lt.

Governor and others).

(v)

WPA/394/2025 (M/s. Aquays Hotels and Resorts

Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Lt. Governor and Others).

(vi)

WPA/395/2025 (Shri T. Kannan Vs. The Lt. Governor

and Others).

(vii)

WPA/396/2025 (Shri. V. Ravichandran Vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(viii)

WPA/397/2025 (M/s. Hotel Sentinel Vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(ix)

WPA/398/2025 (Welcomehotel Bay Island, Unit of

ITC Hotel Ltd. Vs. The Lt. Governor and Others).

(x)

WPA/366/2025 (M/s. TSG Hotels and Resorts vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xi)

WPA/367/2025 (Shri V. Karuppaiah Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

11

(xii)

WPA/368/2025 (M/s. TSG Aqua (TSG Bella Bay) Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xiii)

WPA/369/2025 (Shri K. V. Rama Rao Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xiv)

WPA/399/2025 (M/s. Oriental Filling Station Vs.The

Lt. Governor and Others).

(xv)

WPA/400/2025 (M/s. Jadwet Trading Company Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others).

(xvi)

WPA/401/2025 (M/s. Royal Petroleum Vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(xvii)

WPA/418/2025 (M/s. Kamala Trading Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xviii)

WPA/420/2025 (M/s. Manoj Marketing Vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(xix)

WPA/370/2025(M/s. Holiday Inn vs. The Lieutenant

Governor and Others).

(xx)

WPA/371/2025 (Smti. Usha Moorthy –vs- The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xxi)

WPA/372/2025 (M/s. Aparupa Sands Marina Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xxii)

WPA/373/2025 (M/s. Hotel Aparupa (A) Pvt.

Ltd. vs. The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xxiii)

WPA/374/2025 (M/s. Southern Holdings and

Investments (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Lieutenant

Governor and Others).

(xxiv)

WPA/375/2025 (Shri K. V. Narsimha Rao Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xxv)

WPA/381/2025 (M/s. Silver Sand Neil vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(xxvi)

WPA/383/2025 (Smti. K. Shobha vs. The Lieutenant

Governor and Others).

(xxvii)

WPA/384/2025 (M/s. C.S. Empire vs. The Lieutenant

Governor and Others).

(xxviii)

WPA/385/2025 (M/s. Pearl Park Beach Resort vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

63. Insofar as the writ petitions filed on or after August 19,

2025, are concerned, the same shall stand dismissed solely on

12

the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Those writ petitioners will be at liberty to approach the

Appellate Tribunal. If any question of limitation/time-bar arises,

the Tribunal shall decide the issue taking into consideration the

applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in

particular section 14 thereof as also the factum of pendency of

the writ petitions in this Court.

64. The following writ petitions stand dismissed.

(i)

WPA/566/2025 (M/s. Hotel Arasi Vs. The Lt. Governor

and Others).

(ii)

WPA/568/2025 (M/s. Medival Islander Inn Bar Vs The

Lt. Governor and Others).

(iii)

WPA/569/2025 (M/s. Hotel Sarvottam (A) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others).

(iv)

WPA/570/2025 (M/s. Hotel Rajadeepam Vs The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(v)

WPA/573/2025 (M/s. Whistling Wood Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(vi)

WPA/574/2025 (M/s. Apt Bar and Restaurant Vs. The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(vii)

WPA/575/2025 (M/s. Dharma Cool Bar Vs The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(viii)

WPA/583/2025 (M/s. Hotel Raj Prakash Vs The

Lieutenant Governor and Others).

(ix)

WPA/546/2025 (M/s. Annu Bar and Restaurant vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others).

(x)

WPA/547/2025 (M/s. Pristine Beach Resort vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(xi)

WPA/549/2025 (M/s. Ashoka Bar and

Restaurant vs. The Lt. Governor and Others).

(xii)

WPA/550/2025 (M/s. B. R. B. Bar and Restaurant Vs

Lieutenant Governor and Another).

(xiii)

WPA/551/2025(M/s. Purna Pushpawalli Bar and

Restuarant Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Another).

(xiv)

WPA/552/2025(M/s. Stalin Bar and Restaurant vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others).

13

(xv)

WPA/558/2025 (M/s Hotel A.T. Villa vs.The

Lieutenant Governor and others).

(xvi)

WPA/562/2025 (M/s. Hotel Exel Bar and Restaurant

vs. The Lt. Governor and Others).

(xvii)

WPA/563/2025 (M/s. Unique Bar and Restaurant vs.

The Lt. Governor and Others).

(xviii)

WPA/564/2025 (M/s. G. International vs. The Lt.

Governor and Others).

(xix)

WPA/565/2025 (M/s. G. M. S. Restaurant Vs The Lt.

Governor and Others).

65. I clarify that I have not touched the merits of the respective

cases of the writ petitioners in the 47 writ petitions which are

being disposed of by this judgment and order. The Appellate

Tribunal is requested to decide the transferred cases or any

appeal(s) that may be preferred by any or all of the writ

petitioners whose petitions stand dismissed by this order,

without being influenced by any observation in this judgment

and order.”

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant(s) argued that section

34(1)(a) states that reassessment which is made by the commissioner

should be within a period of 4 years from the end of the year comprising

tax period(s). In the instant case the last date to issue the notice of

assessment(s) has already expired and as such the notices of assessment

of tax due and penalty assessed was barred by limitation. Therefore, the

same is without any jurisdiction. In order to substantiate the same,

learned advocate submitted that for the tax period in the financial year

2017-2018, the limitation commences on 31.03.2018 and the period

concludes on 31.03.2022; similarly for the financial year 2018-2019, the

limitation commences on 31.03.2019 and concludes on 31.03.2023; for

14

the financial year 2019-2020, limitation commences on 31.03.2020 and

concludes on 31.03.2024.

4. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that section/Regulation 58

(4) (b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added Tax Regulation,

2017 states that the Commissioner shall only after considering the

returns, evidence furnished in the returns and evidence acquired in the

course of audit shall issue notices under Section 32 and 33 of the

Regulation. The same was not done in the instant case and as such the

principle of natural justice has been violated.

5. It was also argued that the order of the Commissioner dated

07.01.2021 and the notification dated 31.12.2020 is in contravention of

Regulation 70 (5) and 112 (3) as the order was not published in the official

gazette, no retrospective action is permissible.

6. On behalf of the appellant(s), it was contended that the returns

were filed by the appellants only in 2024 and therefore the assessment is

not barred by limitation is unacceptable, as the notice to file returns has

been issued in 2024 itself. The order dated 07.01.2021 cannot be given

any importance as the same has not been notified as per the Regulation.

Further, the notice which is required to be issued under Regulation 58 is

prescribed in the Regulation itself i.e. Form 37 and no such notice has

been issued till date.

7. It was also argued that from the notice under Section 32 and 33 of

the Regulation it is impossible to find out how the Commissioner has

15

arrived at the calculation, relating to payment of tax particularly when the

turn over assessed by the assessee and turn over assessed by the

authorities are the same.

8. Lastly it was argued that the manner of regulating the procedure

and disposal of the business with regard to the appellate tribunal has not

been brought in force in the form of Regulation as per Regulation 70(6) as

such that the principles of alternative remedy is incomplete and not

applicable in the facts of the present case.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant, in order to fortify the arguments

relied upon the following judgments:-

(a) KUBER |India) Sales Private Limited vs. Secretary Finance

Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala & others Para 11.

(b) M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited Vs The State of Chhattisgarh and

others Civil Appeal No. 1993 of 2022) Para 4-7

(c) Calcutta Discount Co. Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Companies

District-I, Calcutta & another in 1961 AIR Supreme Court 372-Para

28-30.

(d) M/s. Yogi Petroleum Vs The Commissioner (Vat) Dadar and

Nagar Haveli (WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 93644 OF 2020), para

58 to 61.

(e) The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others Vs The Cricket

Association of Bengal and others APO/248 of 2016 with WPO/2662

of 1996]. Para 64

(f) Jharna Saha Vs Joint Commissioner of Sales TAX-Para 3 5.

(g) M/s Shiv Steels Vs. The State of Assam and Others (2025 INSC

1126) para 14 and 15.

(h) Durga Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

(2024: AHC-LKO:22796)

16

(i) M/s Sayar Cars vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) WP

No.30251, 30256 and 30258 of 2019.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the State respondents on the other

hand, submitted that a plain reading of section 34 contemplates that no

assessment or reassessment shall be made after the expiry of four years

from the end of the year for which returns were furnished under section

26 or 28. Further reading of section 26 indicates that the returns under

the said sections are to be furnished in the format and manner and within

the date prescribed by the Commissioner. However, no such prescription

was made prior to the notification of rules.

11. Additionally it was contended that the procedural mechanism

necessary to initiate proceeding being not in place, the initiation of the

legal process was impossible. Under those circumstances, the question of

limitation becomes inherently ambiguous, as there was no scope of

commencement of initiation of any proceeding.

12. It was contended on behalf of the State-respondents that the

procedural framework was brought into force only on 14.12.2020 through

an official notification of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added

Tax Rules, 2020 and a grace period was granted to the registered dealers

till 28.03.2021 for filing of returns and clearance of past dues as per office

order no.18 dated 07.01.2021. Such being the scenario, no proceeding

has been lawfully initiated prior to expiry of such grace period.

17

13. Relying upon such circumstances existing, the law of limitation

cannot be applied as the period for computation would commence only

after 31.03.2021. It was therefore contended that the limitation prescribed

under the statute is to be computed in the present case from the end of

the year for which returns were filed. In the present case, although

returns relating to the year 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 no prescribed return

format existed till 2020 and a statutory grace period for filing for such

returns was granted upto 28.03.2021. Consequently, the returns for the

second quarter of 2017-2018 to third quarter of 2020-2021 could not be

lawfully filed prior to the said date.

14. In order to rebut the issue raised by the appellant relating to

Regulation 58, it was argued that the said Regulation provides for audit

and do not provide any mechanism for its exclusion in issuance of notice

under sections 32 and 33 of the Regulation.

15. Under the Regulation audit and assessment are two distinct

features and merely because both the functions culminate with the

issuance of notice of assessment, the same cannot be construed to be

synonymous. According to the learned advocate, audit is a mechanism for

review of any assessment made under sections 32 and 33.

16. So far as the issue relating to the appellate tribunal is concerned, it

was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum- Civil Judge (Senior Division), Car Nicobar

with link Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Vijaya Puram

18

was designated as the “Appellate Tribunal” under section 73 of the

Regulation in consultation with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High

Court of Calcutta vide Andaman and Nicobar Gazette Notification

No.69/2025 dated 19

th

August, 2025 with immediate effect.

17. As per section 76, any person aggrieved with any decision under

section 74 may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within two months of

service of impugned decision. As per section 76(4) before preferring an

appeal to the Tribunal, the person aggrieved shall deposit the amount in

dispute. As such, the dealers were directed to make payment within

fifteen days to avoid further accrual of interest.

18. To rebut the contention regarding the operation of the Tribunal,

learned advocate for the respondents submitted that powers and manner

of conduct of the Tribunal has been laid down under section 76 of the

Regulation and the procedure with regard to filing has been prescribed in

Rule 55A, 55B and 55C. Further the Tribunal as notified is a judicial

authority, which has commenced operation under the relevant provision

of the Civil Procedure Code, Evidence Act, and Rules of Court which

adequately govern procedural conduct.

19. Lastly, it was submitted that the issue which has been canvassed in

the present appeal(s) has already been considered by the learned Single

Judge who after taking into account the relevant issues has arrived at its

finding. There is no illegality in the findings of the learned Single Judge

and as such the appeal may be dismissed.

19

20. Learned Single Judge, while arriving at the conclusion, framed the

following issues:

(i)

Whether the present writ petition should be entertained

notwithstanding availability of an alternative remedy in

the form of a statutory appeal under section 76 of the

Regulation.

(ii)

Whether or not, the notice of default assessment of tax

and interest dated December 31, 2024, under section 32

of the Regulation is time barred.

(iii)

Whether or not, the notice of assessment of penalty

under section 33 dated December 31, 2024, is bad in law.

(iv)

Whether or not both the notices dated December 31,

2024, stand vitiated by reason of the same having been

issued in breach of the principles of natural justice.

(v)

Whether or not the two notices, both dated December 31,

2024, are bad in law for being vague and bereft of

material particulars.

21. The issue nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) were considered conjointly by the

learned Single Judge and thereafter the conclusion was arrived, that since

alternative remedy was available, the High Court should normally refuse

to exercise its higher prerogative writ jurisdiction. To that effect the

learned Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that by a Notification dated

19

th August 2025 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Car Nicobar with link Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Sri Vijaya Puram was designated as the Appellate Tribunal

contemplated in section 76 of the VAT Regulation with immediate effect.

20

22. Reliance was placed by the learned Trial Court on PHR Invent

Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others in Civil Appeal No

4845 of 2024. Reference was made to Babu Ram Prakash Chanda

Maheshwari Vs. Antarim Zilla Parisahd (1968 SCC Online SC 45);

United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in

(2010) 8 SCC 110; Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs.

Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 - for arriving at

the conclusion that if an alternative remedy is available to an aggrieved

person, particularly under the statute and there is a mechanism for

redressal of grievance, the High Court should not entertain an application

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

23. So far as the issue relating to limitation is concerned, which has

been canvassed on behalf of the appellant(s) that, the limitation is a

question of law and in this case, the notices having been issued beyond

the period of limitation is wholly without jurisdiction, the same was also

exhaustively dealt with taking into account cases where limitation is only

question of law and cases where limitation is a mixed-question of fact and

law. To that effect, the learned Court relied upon P. Kumarakurubaran

vs. P. Narayanan and others, Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 (arising

from SLP(C) NO.2549 of 2021); Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors

versus Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj

Bhonsle and another, Civil Appeal No.14807 of 2024 (Arising out of

SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016.

21

24. The learned Trial Court further proceeded to deal with the

documents relied upon in the writ petition wherein copies of returns were

not enclosed. As such, it was held that the issue of limitation do not take

the shape of a jurisdictional issue in the facts of the case. Thus the Court

arrived at a conclusion that if the notices dated December 31, 2024 were

without jurisdiction, the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) should not be permitted

to invoke the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India as the statute provides the availability of appellate

remedy.

25. Learned Trial Court thereafter dealt with the issue relating to

section 74 of the Regulation and observed that the

appellant(s)/petitioner(s) having filed their written objection asking for

hearing and such hearing was held before the Joint Commissioner, who

by a reasoned order dated 8

th

July, 2025 over-ruled the objection and

upheld the two notices, do reflect the appellant(s)/petitioner(s), by

his/their conduct, waived the rights if any, to invoke the writ jurisdiction

of the High Court for challenging the impugned notices and opted for

statutory avenue for challenging such notices. It was held that once the

petitioner(s)/appellant(s) was unsuccessful before the Joint

Commissioner, the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) should not be allowed to

invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the same notices.

26. While dealing with the issue relating to breach of natural justice,

learned Trial Court relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court

22

in Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India reported in 1981 (1) SCC

664 and on assessment of the Regulations arrived at its finding that a

reading of sections 32 and 33 of the Regulation do not require the office of

the Commissioner to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee prior

to issuance of such notices.

27. It was the further reasoned that section 74 of the Regulation

provides an opportunity to the assessee to file written objection to the said

notices and participate in a hearing before the Commissioner, the said

course of action was adopted by the Appellants/Petitioners.

28. Having considered the reasons assigned by the learned Single

Judge, while dealing with the grievance of the present

appellant(s)/petitioner(s), we are of the opinion that same being a

reasoned order and the scope of intra court appeal being limited, we do

not find any reason to admit the respective appeals.

29. As such, the appeals being MAT/18/2026, MAT/19/2026,

MAT/21/2026, MAT/22/2026, MAT/23/2026, MAT/24/2026,

MAT/28/2026, MAT/29/2026, MAT/30/2026, MAT/31/2026,

MAT/32/2026, MAT/33/2026, MAT/34/2026, MAT/35/2026,

MAT/36/2026, MAT/37/2026, MAT/38/2026, MAT/39/2026,

MAT/40/2026, MAT/41/2026, MAT/42/2026, MAT/43/2026,

MAT/44/2026, MAT/45/2026, MAT/46/2026, MAT/47/2026,

MAT/48/2026, MAT/49/2026, MAT/50/2026, MAT/51/2026,

MAT/52/2026, MAT/53/2026, MAT/54/2026, MAT/55/2026,

23

MAT/56/2026, MAT/57/2026, MAT/58/2026, MAT/59/2026,

MAT/60/2026, MAT/61/2026, MAT/62/2026, MAT/63/2026,

MAT/64/2026, MAT/65/2026, MAT/66/2026 and MAT/68/2026 are

accordingly dismissed.

30. Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.

31. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

32. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )

I agree.

( Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J. )