Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar Bathual, challenged a show cause notice dated 04.02.2026 and the subsequent order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, Cuttack-III Range, Cuttack, which cancelled his registration certificate under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other applicable sums along with the return. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's order in a similar case, M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, which condoned delay in invoking a rule and directed consideration of revocation subject to deposit of dues.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The reasoning was based on the conceded position of the revenue's counsel, who agreed that the authority should act if the petitioner complied with their undertaking. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite parties were directed to consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner undertakes to clear all dues and relies on a binding precedent, and the revenue concedes, the authorities must consider the revocation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration certificate should be considered in light of their undertaking to pay all dues and the precedent set by the coordinate bench in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a similar undertaking to pay dues led to the condonation of delay and a direction for consideration of revocation. They are ready to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Standing Counsel, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfills their undertaking and deposits the required amounts, the concerned authority should proceed accordingly.