M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the revenue's counsel, the petitioner should make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite party (revenue) shall consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of their 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 precedent relied upon. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's undertaking to clear all dues and the revenue's concession, aligning with the principles laid down in the cited case. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer willing to clear all liabilities and demonstrating reliance on established judicial precedent can seek revocation of cancelled GST registration, with the court facilitating the process by directing compliance and timely consideration by the authority. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Priya, challenged a show cause notice dated January 6, 2026, and the subsequent order dated March 7, 2026, issued by the Superintendent, Cuttack-I Range, Cuttack, 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 previous order from a coordinate bench in a similar case, M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, which allowed condonation of delay in invoking a rule for revocation of registration, subject to deposit of dues. The revenue's counsel conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would take necessary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration certificate, considering their undertaking to pay all dues and the precedent set by a coordinate bench? 2. Whether the delay in complying with the formalities for revocation of registration should be condoned in light of the petitioner's willingness to clear all liabilities? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order 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 and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all dues. They are ready and willing to pay all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's counsel, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfills their undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority shall proceed accordingly.