Item No.10 09.09.2026 Court. No. 9 (Saswata) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION WPA 568 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 (CAN not in file) Mithun Bhagat Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Ms. Khusi Kundu …For the petitioner Mr. Ratan Banik Mr. B. Agarwal …For the CGST authorities 1. Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated 23rd February 2026 passed under provisions of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2107 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Records would reveal that on 21st April 2026, at the time of call, since the petitioner was not represented, the matter was adjourned to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case. However, the question of maintainability of the writ petition was kept open. On the returnable date, i.e., on 27th April 2026, the petitioner was once again not represented. In the circumstances the writ petition was dismissed for default. Subsequently, by order dated 13th May 2026, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to restore the writ petition and following the 2 aforesaid by order dated 2nd July 2026 the coordinate Bench had permitted the GST authorities to file an affidavit in response to the allegations made in the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such order dated 2nd July 2026, the petitioner had filed a mandamus appeal which was registered as MAT 79 of 2026. Such appeal came to be rejected by order dated 21st August 2026. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and though, Mr. Lakhotia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would insist that the show cause notice issued by the respondents is vague, however, I find that the Scheme of the said Act provides for multi tire adjudicatory process. In that view, not only appellate remedy is provided for under Section 107 of the said Act, but a further recourse therefrom in the form of an appeal before the appellate tribunal is also provided in view of Section 112 of the said Act. In an attempt to bypass the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court and would seek to raise the issue that the show cause notice is vague. 4. I am of the view that when a two tired recourse from an order passed by the proper officer is available under the Scheme of the said Act, no interference is called for. 5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate tribunal within 4 weeks from date. 3 6. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed within the ordinary statutory period for maintaining an appeal and was pending before this Court, I am of the view that in the event, the petitioner files an appeal from the order impugned in the writ petition within 15 days from date, the appellate authority having regard to the observations made hereinabove, shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition along with its connected application being CAN 2 of 2026 accordingly stands dismissed. 8. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)