M/S Munna Chaudhary through its proprietor Munna Chaudhary vs The Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4593 of 2026
======================================================
M/S Munna Chaudhary through its proprietor Munna Chaudhary son of Late
Girwar Chaudhary, resident of PO - Gulzarbagh, Danka Imali, Patna-800007.
At Present Ajawan, P.S-Naubatpur, Dist Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
(CE), Revenue Building, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna.
2. The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (CE), Revenue Building,
Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Appeal) of the Custom Central CGST and
Central Excise (CE), Patna, having its office at 2nd Floor, CR Building
(NFC), Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Patna city west, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of CGST, Patna city West, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Senior SC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 17-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST & CX.
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs:-
“i. For setting aside the order dated 26.06.2023
(Annexure- P/2) by which registration certificate of
the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no. 5
without giving any opportunity of been heard to the
petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
2/9
ii. For setting aside the order dated 02.02.2024
(Annexure-P/6) by which revocation application of
cancellation was rejected by the respondent no. 4
without giving any opportunity of hearing.
iii. For setting aside the order dated 11.11.2024
(Annexure-P/7) passed by the respondent no. 3 on
the ground of Limitation.
iv. For setting aside the order dated 11.07.2025
(Annexure-P/9) passed by the respondent no. 3 on
the ground of Limitation.
v. For granting any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner may ask at the time of the argument.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a
contractor doing business with various government organizations.
The Respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice (in short ‘SCN’)
dated 03.02.2023 and alleged therein that the petitioner had failed
to file the return for the continuous period of six months. Copy of
the SCN has been placed on record as Annexure-P/1.
4. It is further stated that as the Accountant of the
petitioner was suffering from Dengue and the son of the petitioner
was murdered during this period, the petitioner could not appear
which resulted in passing of the order dated 26.06.2023 by
Respondent No. 5. By the order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure-P/2),
the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
5. It is stated that the petitioner filed an application on
20.07.2023 for revocation of the order dated 26.06.2023. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
3/9
respondent authority issued SCN dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure-P/4)
against the petition of revocation for cancellation and demanded
details of taxes, interest and penalty paid along with the detail of
late fee paid for late filling of GSTR 1 & GSTR 3B returns up to
the effective date of cancellation of registration.
6. In paragraph ‘9’ of the writ application, the petitioner
has made a categorical settlement which reads as under:-
“That the petitioner has filed his up to date return
for last six months on 14.07.2023. After paying the
relevant late fees this return was filed prior to issue
of SCN dated 22.01.2024.”
7. Mr. Uttam Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner had filed the updated return
which were uploaded on the GST site, the respondent authorities
had the knowledge that the petitioner had filed his last six months’
returns, but without considering the filing of the returns, the
respondent no. 4 has rejected the application for revocation of
cancellation. Thus, the petitioner has assailed the order dated
02.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/6) by which
the revocation application of the petitioner has been rejected.
8. An another plea of the petitioner is that on perusal of
the order passed by the respondent no. 4, it would appear that it

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
4/9
does not have any DIN No. which was mandatory at the relevant
time.
9. The appellant preferred an appeal on 24.03.2024
against the order dated 26.03.2023 before the appellate authority
but the appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground of
the same being barred by limitation. The order of the appellate
authority has been brought on record as Annexure- ‘P/7’ and the
same is under challenge. Even the Second Appeal preferred by the
petitioner before the respondent no. 3 stood rejected vide
Annexure ‘P/9’ to the writ application.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the CGST & CX has submitted that in this case, it is
not the stand of the petitioner that he was not served with the SCN.
Since the petitioner did not file any response even after service of
the SCN, the order of cancellation was passed. Learned Senior
Standing Counsel submits that the order of cancellation dated
26.06.2023 does not bear any DIN No. but that would not be a
reason to set aside the order because subsequently, the Department
has come out with Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated
09.06.2025 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs (CBIC). By this circular (Annexure- ‘R/C’ to the counter

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
5/9
affidavit), it has been clarified that the requirement of quoting DIN
No. is dispensed with for communications generated through the
GST common portal, provided such communications carry a valid
and verifiable Reference Number (RFN). The Circular recognizes
that the GST portal itself functions as a secure, centralized and
tamper-proof system, where all the documents are system
generated and each such communication is uniquely identifiable
through RFN. Placing reliance on the Circular (Annexure- ‘C/R’),
learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the order of
cancellation as contained in Annexure- ‘P/2’ must sustain.
11. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, however, does not
deny the fact that apart form the issuance of the show cause notice
for cancellation of the registration, the respondent authority had
not issued any separate notice to the petitioner giving him an
opportunity of personal hearing. As per the settled procedure, at
least three dates for personal hearing were required to be fixed by
the respondent authorities but in this case, admittedly, only the
SCN (Annexure-P/1) was issued before passing of the order of
cancellation (Annexure- ‘P/2’).
12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel is unable to
answer paragraph ‘9’ of the writ application. In fact, in paragraph
‘14’ of the counter affidavit, the respondent has answered

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
6/9
paragraph ‘9’ of the writ application but the assertion of the
petitioner in paragraph ‘9’ has remained intact. There is no
statement of the respondent controverting that statement of the
writ petitioner.
13. We have noticed on going through the pleadings
available on the record that prior to issuance of the SCN for
rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking revocation of
the cancellation of registration (Annexure ‘P/4’), the petitioner had
already submitted his updated returns and paid the required
Annexure ‘P/4’
amount of late fee on 14.07.2023 itself.
was issued on 20.07.2023 by the respondent authority. In fact, a
perusal of Annexure ‘P/4’ would show that the name and
designation of the authority who issued Annexure ‘P/4’ is not
there. This point has also been taken by the petitioner in the writ
petition, but there is no answer to it.
14. We have further noticed from Annexure ‘P/3’ that
the petitioner had submitted to the Jurisdictional Superintendent
that he could not file the return for the period January, 2023 to
June, 2023 because all the papers were with the Accountant. The
petitioner further informed that he was suffering from illness on
account of Dengue and he further informed the Superintendent that
his son was murdered, therefore, he was in disturbed state of mind.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
7/9
Despite this communication contained in Annexure ‘P/3’, the
Superintendent did not care for it and Annexure ‘P/4’ has been
passed in utmost haste without looking on to the GST Portal where
the petitioner had already uploaded the returns.
15. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent
authorities have acted unmindfully, the impugned order of
cancellation of registration (Annexure ‘P/2’) as well as the order
by which the revocation application of the petitioner has been
rejected (Annexure ‘P/6’) are liable to be set aside, firstly, on the
ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as embodied
in the statute in form of Section 75 (4) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act which casts a duty
upon the respondent authorities to give personal hearing to the
petitioner and it has been settled by now that at least 3 dates are
required to be fixed for this purpose. The impugned orders are
liable to be set aside on the ground that Annexure ‘P/4’ has been
issued by the authority whose name and designation is not shown
and at the relevant time even as it was mandatory to provide DIN
Number, the SCN (Annexure ‘P/4’) does not bear any DIN. The
subsequent Circular of 2025 would not result in conferring any
legality to Annexure ‘P/4’ by giving the Circular a retrospective
effect.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
8/9
16. We are of the opinion that the Appellate Authority
though dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation but on the
face of the conclusion which we have reached to, finding that the
respondent authorities have committed jurisdictional error which
has an adverse consequence in form of affecting the livelihood of
the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that even the
appellate orders are required to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned
orders as contained in Annexure ‘P/2’, Annexure ‘P/6’, Annexure
'P/7', Annexure 'P/9' and Annexure ‘P/10’. The respondent
authorities are directed to restore the registration of the petitioner
forthwith.
18. For the reason that despite submission of the returns
with payment of late fees as back as on 14.07.2023, the respondent
authorities ignored the same and went on to issue SCN (Annexure
‘P/4’) on 22.01.2024 and further passed an order of rejection of the
application for revocation of cancellation without application of
judicious mind and by non-consideration of the materials available
on the record in form of the request of the petitioner as contained
in Annexure ‘P/3’, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
writ application is fit to be allowed with cost.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4593 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
9/9
19. We, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to
pay cost of litigation assessed at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) to the petitioner within one month from today.
20. The writ application stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
lekhi/-praphul/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.07.2026
Transmission Date