M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,Cuttack

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the Standing Counsel for the department, the petitioner should be permitted to make the payments as undertaken. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the opposite party (State Tax Officer) was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of its registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner undertakes to clear all statutory dues and the revenue concedes to the consideration of revocation upon such compliance, the High Court will direct the authorities to act accordingly, following precedents of similar nature.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pooja, challenged a show cause notice dated March 10, 2026, and the subsequent order dated April 29, 2026, issued by the State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, which cancelled its Goods and Services Tax registration certificate. 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 of a coordinate bench in 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 Standing Counsel for the department conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration certificate should be considered in accordance with law, given its undertaking to pay all dues. (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of relevant CGST/SGST Act and Rules, and the principle of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that its case is covered by the coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which allowed for condonation of delay and consideration of revocation applications upon deposit of all dues. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's contention: The Standing Counsel for the department conceded that if the petitioner fulfills its undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority should proceed to consider the application for revocation.