M/S.Shree Jagannath Engineering Co.,Kendujhar vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST And Customs, Keonjhar

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Shree Jagannath Engineering Co., challenged the cancellation of its GST registration certificate. The cancellation order was dated 17.11.2025, following a show cause notice dated 15.10.2025, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Customs, Keonjhar. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. 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 a rule and directed consideration of revocation subject to payment of dues. The Opposite Parties, through their learned Standing Counsel, 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 order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Petitioner undertook to make all necessary payments within two weeks. The Opposite Parties conceded that upon such payment, they would consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of its registration certificate. The Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Consequently, the Opposite Parties were directed 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 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 GST registration cancellation should be considered, given the delay in compliance and the Petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues, in light of the principles laid down in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022)? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that its case for relief, including condonation of delay in fulfilling formalities for revocation, is covered by the precedent set in the M/s. Mohanty Enterprises case. They were ready and willing to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's Arguments: The Opposite Parties, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled its undertaking to deposit the required amounts, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.