Amitabh Samal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack 1

Facts

The Petitioner, Amitabh Samal, challenged a show cause notice dated 05.07.2023 and the subsequent order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Cuttack-I East Circle, which cancelled his GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues. 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 Revenue conceded that if the Petitioner complied with his undertaking, the concerned authority would take necessary action.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's prayer for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises). The Revenue conceded that upon the Petitioner's compliance with his undertaking to deposit all dues, the concerned authority would take necessary action. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party was directed to consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the 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's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be condoned, considering his undertaking to pay all dues. 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to relief based on the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors. Petitioner's Arguments: 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, subject to the deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. The Petitioner stated his readiness to make these payments. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through the Additional Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled his undertaking to deposit the amounts, the authority would proceed accordingly.