Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur Circle

Facts

The petitioner, Prashanti Das, challenged a show cause notice dated November 6, 2024, and the subsequent order dated July 10, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST, Jagatsinghpur, which cancelled her Goods and Services Tax registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other dues along with her return. She relied on a previous order from 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 a rule for revocation of registration, subject to deposit of dues.

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the revenue and the petitioner's undertaking, the matter could be resolved without extensive adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to make all payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the opposite party (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) was 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 Court found that the petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was supported by the precedent relied upon. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in seeking revocation of her cancelled GST registration certificate should be condoned, considering her undertaking to pay all dues. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and statutory provisions governing revocation). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that her case is covered by the precedent set 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 the petitioner depositing all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, etc., and complying with other formalities. She contended that her readiness to pay all dues should lead to a similar relief. Revenue's argument: 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.