M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, Khurda

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Manorama Nayak, challenged a show cause notice dated August 3, 2024, and the subsequent order dated September 6, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST, which cancelled the petitioner's Goods and Services Tax registration certificate. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other dues along with the return. The petitioner 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 the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of revocation subject to deposit of dues.

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the Revenue, the petitioner shall make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) shall consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the cited precedent. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be considered in accordance with law, given the undertaking to pay all dues, and if the delay in such application should be condoned, in light of the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, wherein a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 and directed the authority to consider the revocation application upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. The petitioner is ready and willing to make these payments. Revenue's contention: The Additional Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that if the petitioner complies with the undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority shall take necessary action.