M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, Rourkela

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh, challenged a show cause notice dated 16.11.2025 and an order dated 18.12.2025 by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, which cancelled its GST registration certificate. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues along with returns. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors., which condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would take necessary action.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition stands disposed of based on the conceded position of the parties. The petitioner is directed to make all payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Parties (Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and another) are 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 reasoning is based on the petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues and the revenue's concession, aligning with the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration can be revoked upon compliance with payment obligations, even if there is a delay, provided the revenue concedes to such a course of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in seeking revocation of GST registration cancellation, subject to payment of all dues, in light of the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules? 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, which allowed similar relief upon payment of dues. They are ready to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner complies with the requirements and deposits the amounts as undertaken, the concerned authority shall consider the application for revocation in accordance with law.