Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, Khurda

Facts

The petitioner, Kabita Nayak, challenged a show cause notice dated 14th May, 2024, and an order dated 8th January, 2025, which cancelled her GST registration. The cancellation was passed by the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sums due. She 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 a rule and directed consideration of revocation subject to deposit of dues. The petitioner argued her case was covered by this precedent.

Held

The Court held that in light of the conceded position by the revenue and the petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues, the matter could be resolved. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the opposite party (revenue) 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 ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner is willing to clear all statutory dues and a precedent exists for condoning delay and considering revocation upon such payment, the revenue should facilitate the process. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be considered, given her 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 contended that her case is squarely covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned delay and directed consideration of revocation upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. She expressed her readiness to comply with these requirements. Revenue's Argument: The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfills her undertaking and deposits the required amounts, the concerned authority would take necessary action.