Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii Circle

Facts

The petitioner, Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda, challenged a show cause notice dated 2nd May, 2026, and the subsequent order dated 5th June, 2026, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. 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 for revocation of registration, subject to deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the revenue, the petitioner's undertaking to make payments was accepted. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance by the petitioner, the opposite party (Superintendent of CGST) was directed to consider the 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 writ petition was disposed of based on these directions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration cancellation can be condoned, considering the undertaking to pay all dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the intent of the CGST Act/Rules regarding compliance and revocation). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, subject to deposit of all dues. They sought similar relief. Revenue's argument: The Junior Standing Counsel for the department, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority would proceed as required.