Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, Manas Behera, challenged a show cause notice dated August 14, 2025, and the subsequent order dated October 30, 2025, passed by an authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which cancelled his registration certificate. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all due taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other required sums along with the return. He relied on a previous order by a coordinate bench 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 the petitioner's application for revocation subject to deposit of dues.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding dues, including taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties, was accepted. Relying on the conceded position of the opposite parties and the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, the Court directed the petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite parties were directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of his registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the cited order. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of his cancelled GST registration certificate should be condoned, and if so, what directions should be issued to the authorities, considering the petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that his case is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, where a coordinate bench condoned delay and directed consideration of revocation upon payment of dues. The revenue/State, through the Additional Standing Counsel, conceded that if the petitioner complies with the undertaking and deposits the amounts, the concerned authority should proceed accordingly.