Gagan Kumar Das vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Jagatsinghpur Circle

Facts

The Petitioner, Gagan Kumar Das, challenged a show cause notice dated 25.09.2024 and the subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Jagatsinghpur Circle, which cancelled his GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other dues along with the return. 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 OGST Rules, subject to deposit of dues. The Opposite Party (State Tax Officer) conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay in seeking revocation of his GST registration cancellation, is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Court noted the conceded position of the Opposite Party (State Tax Officer) that necessary action would be taken if the Petitioner complied with his undertaking. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party is directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of his registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in applying for revocation of GST registration cancellation, subject to payment of all dues, in light of the judgment in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises? The Petitioner argued that his case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which allowed condonation of delay and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. He submitted that he is ready and willing to make these payments. The Revenue (State Tax Officer) conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills his undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority shall take necessary action. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue beyond this concession.