Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Sunanda Raul, challenged a show cause notice dated November 14, 2023, and the subsequent order dated December 15, 2023, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha, which cancelled her registration certificate under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other required sums along with her returns. 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) where delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules was condoned, subject to deposit of dues.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer for relief, including condonation of delay, is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others. The revenue's counsel conceded to this position. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to make all payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite party (revenue) is 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 writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in complying with tax obligations and seeking revocation of registration cancellation should be condoned, similar to the precedent set 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 coordinate bench's order, which condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, subject to the deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. She is willing to make these payments. Revenue's contention: The Additional Standing Counsel for the Department, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfills her undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority should proceed accordingly.