Personal hearing and valid notice requirements protect GST registration, preventing retrospective cure of defective cancellation and revocation actions.

GST registration cancellation requires a personal hearing before adverse action under the statutory framework; issuing only a show-cause notice without fixing a hearing date breaches natural justice and invalidates the cancellation. Revocation cannot validly be rejected where returns and late fees were filed before the relevant notice, but the notice was unsigned or unidentified, omitted the then-mandatory DIN, and failed to consider material on record. A later circular exempting certain portal-generated communications from DIN requirements cannot retrospectively cure defects in an earlier notice. Consequently, the cancellation, revocation rejection and consequential appellate actions were vitiated, requiring restoration of registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration without a personal hearing complied with the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation was valid despite prior filing of returns and payment of late fees, on the basis of an unsigned or unidentified notice lacking DIN, and whether a subsequent circular could validate that notice retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration without a personal hearing complied with the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 75(4) required a personal hearing before an adverse action. Only a show-cause notice was issued and no separate opportunity of personal hearing was afforded; the prescribed process requiring fixation of hearing dates was not followed. The cancellation consequently suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was invalid for breach of the statutory hearing requirement and principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation was valid despite prior filing of returns and payment of late fees, on the basis of an unsigned or unidentified notice lacking DIN, and whether a subsequent circular could validate that notice retrospectively.

Analysis: The returns and late fees had been furnished before the notice concerning revocation. The notice did not disclose the name or designation of its issuing authority and lacked the then-mandatory DIN. The later circular dispensing with DIN for portal-generated communications carrying a verifiable reference number could not retrospectively cure the defects in the earlier notice. The material already available on record was not considered.

Conclusion: Rejection of revocation was invalid; the subsequent circular could not retrospectively validate the defective notice, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The foundational cancellation and revocation actions being vitiated, the consequential appellate orders founded on those actions could not stand; registration was directed to be restored and litigation costs were awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse GST registration action taken without the statutorily required personal hearing is void, and a subsequent administrative circular cannot retrospectively cure defects in an earlier notice or order.

---