Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Puspanjali Bhuyan, challenged a show cause notice dated August 13, 2025, and the subsequent order dated September 13, 2025, issued by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, which cancelled her GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other dues along with the return. She relied on a coordinate bench's order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others), which condoned delay in invoking a rule and directed consideration of revocation applications upon deposit of dues. The Additional Standing Counsel for the department conceded that if the petitioner complied with her undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that in view of the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sum required, and the conceded position of the revenue, the petitioner should make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the opposite party (revenue) was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of her registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the precedent cited. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of her GST registration certificate should be considered, given her undertaking to pay all dues, and if the delay in invoking the relevant rule can be condoned, in light of the principles laid down in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that her case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, and she is ready to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums required, along with complying with other formalities. She sought relief based on this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Additional Standing Counsel for the department conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled her undertaking to deposit the amounts and comply with other requirements, the authority concerned would proceed as required by law.