Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Munna Chaudhary, a sole proprietorship engaged in contract work with various government organisations at Patna, held GST registration that came to be cancelled by Respondent No.5 vide order dated 26.06.2023 after a show cause notice dated 03.02.2023 alleged failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner could not respond in time because his accountant was suffering from dengue and his son had been murdered during the relevant period. On 20.07.2023 the petitioner applied for revocation of the cancellation, but before deciding it the Department issued a fresh show cause notice dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure P/4) demanding return-filing and late-fee details, and ultimately rejected the revocation application on 02.02.2024. The petitioner's first appeal, filed 24.03.2024, was rejected as time-barred on 11.11.2024, and his second appeal was rejected on 11.07.2025. Crucially, the petitioner had already filed his updated GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns for the preceding six months on 14.07.2023, with late fees paid, well before the SCN dated 22.01.2024. Both the cancellation order and Annexure P/4 also lacked a mandatory DIN number, though the Department relied on a subsequent CBIC Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 09.06.2025 dispensing with DIN for portal-generated communications bearing a Reference Number (RFN). The matter was heard by the Patna High Court under Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 on 17.07.2026.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether cancellation of registration without personal hearing violates Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act.
  2. Whether an SCN/order lacking a mandatory DIN number is valid, and whether a later circular dispensing with DIN can cure such a defect retrospectively.
  3. Whether rejection of the revocation application, ignoring that the petitioner had already filed updated returns and paid late fees before the SCN, was sustainable.
  4. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on limitation despite underlying jurisdictional errors.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Registration was cancelled without any opportunity of personal hearing, violating natural justice under Section 75(4).
  • Updated GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns for the relevant six months, along with late fees, had already been filed on 14.07.2023, before the SCN dated 22.01.2024 was issued.
  • Annexure P/4, rejecting the revocation application, did not disclose the name and designation of the issuing authority and lacked a mandatory DIN number.
  • The cancellation followed genuine hardship — the accountant's illness with dengue and the murder of the petitioner's son.
  • The appellate orders rejecting the appeal on limitation should also be set aside since the underlying orders were themselves void.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The SCN for cancellation was duly served and the petitioner did not respond, justifying the cancellation order.
  • Though the cancellation order lacked a DIN, this stood cured by CBIC Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 09.06.2025 dispensing with DIN for portal communications bearing a valid RFN.
  • The GST portal is a secure, centralised, tamper-proof system where every communication is uniquely identifiable through RFN, making DIN non-essential.
  • It was conceded, however, that apart from the SCN, no separate notice or personal hearing opportunity was granted before cancellation.

Court Order/Findings

  • Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act casts a mandatory duty to grant personal hearing, and settled practice requires at least three dates to be fixed — none was done here.
  • The subsequent 2025 circular dispensing with DIN cannot be given retrospective effect to validate an SCN/order that lacked DIN when DIN was mandatory.
  • The Department could not controvert the petitioner's averment that updated returns with late fees were filed on 14.07.2023, before the SCN dated 22.01.2024.
  • Finding jurisdictional error affecting the petitioner's livelihood, even the appellate orders rejecting the appeal on limitation were held liable to be set aside.
  • The cancellation order (Annexure P/2), the revocation-rejection order (Annexure P/6), and the appellate orders (Annexures P/7, P/9, P/10) were all set aside; authorities were directed to restore registration forthwith.
  • Litigation cost of Rs.15,000 was directed to be paid to the petitioner within one month.

Important Clarification

A GST registration cancellation or SCN issued without a mandatory DIN cannot be validated retrospectively by a later circular dispensing with the DIN requirement; further, failure to grant at least three personal hearing dates before cancellation breaches Section 75(4) and vitiates the cancellation, even where the appeal is otherwise time-barred.

Sections Involved

  • Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — mandatory personal hearing before adverse orders.
  • Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 — limitation for filing appeal.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — writ jurisdiction invoked.
  • CBIC Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 09.06.2025 — DIN dispensation for portal-generated communications.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The Court fully allowed the writ petition, set aside the cancellation order, the revocation-rejection order and both appellate orders, restored the registration, and awarded costs — a clear and complete win for the petitioner.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
  • Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4593 of 2026
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
  • Decision Date: 17.07.2026
  • Disposal Nature: Allowed; registration cancellation and appellate orders set aside, registration restored

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.