M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Abdhish Dhal Samanta, challenged a show cause notice dated August 14, 2025, and the subsequent order dated September 13, 2025, issued by the Chief Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. 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, subject to deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would consider the matter.

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the revenue and the petitioner's undertaking to make payments, the matter could be disposed of. The petitioner was directed to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite party (revenue) was directed to 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 found that the petitioner's situation was covered by the precedent relied upon, and the revenue did not oppose the consideration of the revocation application subject to compliance. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration should be considered, subject to compliance with payment obligations, in light of the undertaking to pay all dues and the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a similar situation led to the condonation of delay and consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. The petitioner is ready to pay all outstanding amounts. Revenue's Argument: The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfills their undertaking and deposits the required amounts, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.