Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, Balangir

Facts

The petitioner, Bijaya Kumar Parekh, challenged a show cause notice dated November 16, 2025, and the subsequent order dated December 29, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Balangir Circle, which cancelled his GST registration certificate. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other amounts due, along with the return. He relied on a coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, which condoned delay in invoking a rule for revocation of cancellation and directed consideration of the application subject to deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would proceed accordingly.

Held

The Court held that in light of the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sum required, and the revenue's concession, the petitioner should be permitted to make these payments. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amounts within two weeks. Upon such deposit, the opposite party (State Tax Officer) was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of his 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 the revenue concedes, the authorities should consider the revocation of registration cancellation, even if there was an initial delay in compliance, by condoning such delay subject to full payment.

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? (Question of law and fact, turning on the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his case is covered by the coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which condoned the delay and directed consideration of the revocation application upon payment of all dues. He submitted he is ready to pay all outstanding amounts. Revenue's contention: The Additional Standing Counsel for the department conceded that if the petitioner fulfills his undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority would take necessary action.