Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Ii

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's undertaking to pay all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required, along with her return, would be considered. The Court relied on the conceded position of the Opposite Party and the precedent set by a coordinate bench in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer's willingness to clear all dues, coupled with a concession from the revenue, warrants consideration of the revocation of a cancelled GST registration, even if there was a delay in compliance. The Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party is directed to consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, Saudamini Samantray, challenged a show cause notice dated January 6, 2026, and the subsequent order dated February 11, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar Circle, which cancelled her GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other dues along with the return. She relied on a coordinate bench's order in a similar case, M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors., which condoned delay in invoking a rule and directed consideration of revocation application upon deposit of dues. The Opposite Party conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be condoned, in light of the undertaking to pay all dues and the precedent set by a coordinate bench? The Petitioner argued that her claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, wherein a similar delay was condoned subject to deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, etc. She contended that she is ready and willing to pay all such amounts. The Revenue (Opposite Party) conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills her undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority should proceed with the matter.