Lalu Kumar Bagh vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Koraput Range, Koraput

Facts

The Petitioner, Lalu Kumar Bagh, challenged a show cause notice dated 06.02.2024 and the subsequent order dated 09.04.2024 by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Koraput Range, Koraput, Odisha, which cancelled his GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. He relied on a coordinate bench's order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.) which condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of revocation applications upon deposit of dues. The Opposite Party conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Petitioner undertook to deposit all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required to be paid along with the return. The Opposite Party (Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise) conceded that upon the Petitioner making these payments, the authority would consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate. The Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Consequently, the Opposite Party was directed to consider the application for revocation of cancellation of the registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of this conceded position and the operative directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration should be considered, given his undertaking to pay all outstanding dues, taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties, and in light of the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that his case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and directed the authorities to consider the revocation application subject to the deposit of all dues. They sought similar relief. Revenue's Argument: The Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled his undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority should proceed to consider the application for revocation.