M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, challenged a show cause notice dated July 7, 2025, and the subsequent order dated August 7, 2025, which cancelled its GST registration certificate. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Sabyasachi Panda, stated its readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sums due 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 a rule and directed consideration of revocation application upon deposit of dues. The Opposite Parties, represented by Mr. Sheshadev Das, Addl. Standing 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 and the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding dues, the matter could be resolved. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party (Commissioner of CT & GST) was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of its 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 observations. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner is willing to clear all dues and the revenue concedes, the authorities should consider revocation of registration cancellation upon such compliance, even if there was an initial delay, following precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding dues, including tax, interest, late fee, and penalty, is sufficient to warrant consideration for revocation of the cancelled GST registration certificate, particularly in light of the delay in compliance? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions and the principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that its case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which allowed for condonation of delay and consideration of revocation upon deposit of dues. They are willing to pay all amounts required. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that if the petitioner fulfills its undertaking to deposit the amounts, the authority concerned should proceed as required by law.