M/S Pabitra Kumar Prusty vs. The Chief Commissioner , CT And GST, Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pabitra Kumar Prusty, challenged a show cause notice dated 05.04.2024 and an order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Chief Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other applicable sums along with the return. The petitioner 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 OGST Rules, subject to deposit of dues. The Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties conceded that if the petitioner complies with the undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The revenue's Standing Counsel conceded that upon the petitioner fulfilling their undertaking to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Consequently, the Opposite Parties are to consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner is willing to clear all dues and a similar case has been decided by a coordinate bench allowing for condonation of delay upon such compliance, the same relief should be extended, subject to the petitioner fulfilling their obligations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in the petitioner invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (OGST Rules) for revocation of cancellation of GST registration should be condoned, and if so, what are the consequences, turning on the interpretation of Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order of a coordinate bench in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, which condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all dues. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums required. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties, after perusing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner complies with the undertaking and deposits the amounts, the authority concerned shall take necessary action.