Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, Ganjam

Facts

The petitioner, Manoranjan Sadangi, challenged a show cause notice dated November 16, 2025, and an order dated December 22, 2024, passed by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, Ganjam, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. He 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 for revocation of registration, subject to deposit of dues. The revenue department's counsel conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the revenue department, the petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues, and the reliance on the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, the writ petition could be disposed of. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the opposite party (revenue) 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 Court effectively condoned the delay and directed the authority to process the revocation application subject to the petitioner's compliance.

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 principles of natural justice and statutory interpretation of relevant rules). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that his case is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. He sought similar relief. Revenue's Argument: The revenue department, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled his undertaking to deposit all amounts, the authority concerned would proceed as required.