GST Registration Cancelled – SCN & Orders Set Aside for Lack of Hearing

Case Title: National Enterprises Through Proprietor Sakil Saifi v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition Numbers: W.P.(C) 5119/2025 & W.P.(C) 5027/2025 with connected CM Applications
Date of Judgement: 23rd April, 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of SCN & Orders under Section 73 – Natural Justice / GST Registration Cancellation
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of CGST/DGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case (Para 2–8)

• The petitioner challenged two SCNs and corresponding orders under Section 73 CGST/DGST Act for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 (Para 2).

• The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 9/2023 & 56/2023 – Central Tax extending limitation periods under Section 168A (Para 3).

• The lead matter on validity of these notifications (DJST Traders Pvt Ltd v. UOI) is already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025 (Para 4–7).

• The petitioner’s GST registration had already been cancelled on 23rd June 2020 (Para 6).

• Consequently, SCNs were not served, and orders were passed ex parte without reply or personal hearing (Para 7–8).

Questions in Consideration (Para 4–8)

1. Whether SCNs and orders issued after cancellation of GST registration, without serving the petitioner, are valid?

2. Whether impugned orders under Section 73 can be sustained despite denial of opportunity of reply and hearing?

3. Whether challenge to Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023 can be entertained when issue is sub judice before Supreme Court?

Observations of the Court (Para 9–10)

• Notifications’ validity is already before the Supreme Court, hence present challenge is subject to its outcome (Para 5).

• On facts, the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice since no reply or hearing was afforded (Para 6–8).

• Court held that impugned orders passed without hearing cannot be sustained (Para 10).

Judgement of the Court (Para 11–13)

• Impugned orders set aside.

• Petitioner granted 30 days to file reply to SCNs.

• Adjudicating authority directed to grant personal hearing and pass fresh orders after considering submissions (Para 11–12).

• Writ petitions disposed in these terms (Para 13).

Between Fine Lines (5-Line Simple Summary)

The Delhi High Court set aside GST demand orders passed without hearing a taxpayer whose registration was already cancelled. The Court noted that SCNs were never served, making the orders invalid. The petitioner now gets 30 days to reply. The adjudicating authority must give a personal hearing. Challenge to notifications on limitation extension remains subject to Supreme Court outcome.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”