M/S Syndicate Jewellers vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court condoned the delay in the Petitioner's application for revocation of registration under the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules). The Court directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties due, and complying with other formalities, their application for revocation would be considered in accordance with law. The Court further ordered that a downloaded copy of the order would be produced before the proper officer. Upon the Petitioner complying with the conditions, the proper officer would open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST return or accept it manually. Annexure 11 to the writ petition was set at rest in view of this order. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Syndicate Jewellers, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties (Union of India and Others) to permit them to make a proper application for revocation of their earlier registration, by condoning the delay, in view of certain notifications. The Petitioner was pressing prayer (d) of their petition. The Petitioner also pointed out that the late fee was now governed by fresh notifications. The Opposite Parties stated that as long as the delay in filing the revocation application was condoned and the Petitioner complied with all requirements, including paying due taxes, their 3B Return Form would be accepted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to make a proper application for revocation of their earlier registration by condoning the delay, in light of the notifications produced by the Petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that they should be allowed to file a proper application for revocation of their registration by condoning the delay, relying on notifications (Annexure-8 series) which governed the late fees. They sought a direction to the Opposite Parties to accept this application. Revenue's contention: The Opposite Parties, represented by Mr. R.S. Chimanka, stated that they would accept the Petitioner's 3B Return Form, provided the delay in filing the revocation application was condoned and the Petitioner fulfilled all other requirements, including payment of taxes due.