Cancellation of GST registration without personal hearing and ignoring prior filing of returns violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a government contractor, had his GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent (Respondent No. 5) via order dated 26.06.2023 for failing to file returns for six continuous months.

The petitioner claimed he could not respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) due to personal tragedies, including his son's murder and a bout of Dengue.

On 14.07.2023, the petitioner filed all updated returns and paid late fees.

Despite this, his application for revocation of cancellation was rejected on 02.02.2024.

Subsequent appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority on the grounds of limitation.

The petitioner challenged these orders, noting the lack of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the initial cancellation order and the denial of a personal hearing.

1. Whether the cancellation of registration and subsequent rejection of revocation were legally sustainable given the violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act.

2. Whether the absence of a DIN on the SCN and orders rendered the proceedings invalid.

3. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the revocation application after the petitioner had already filed updated returns and paid late fees.

Section 75(4) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which mandates an opportunity for a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.

Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) Circulars regarding the mandatory requirement of a Document Identification Number (DIN) for all communications, noting that subsequent relaxations (Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST) do not apply retrospectively to cure past illegalities.

The Court found that the respondent authorities acted "unmindfully" and in "utmost haste". Although an SCN was issued, the authorities failed to provide the mandatory personal hearing (settled as requiring at least three dates) as per Section 75(4).

The petitioner had uploaded his returns and paid fees on 14.07.2023, yet the authorities ignored the GST Portal records when issuing a subsequent SCN for rejection of revocation on 22.01.2024.

The court rejected the Revenue's argument that a 2025 Circular regarding Reference Numbers (RFN) validated the missing DIN, ruling the Circular could not have retrospective effect.

The court determined that the jurisdictional errors and the impact on the petitioner's livelihood outweighed the procedural bar of limitation at the appellate stage.

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner's registration forthwith and awarded litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within one month.