Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, Katak

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case was covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Petitioner was directed to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party was directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of her GST registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted the conceded position of the Opposite Party. The writ petition was disposed of in view of these directions. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the Petitioner's undertaking and the Department's concession.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sushama Mishra, challenged a show cause notice dated 12.02.2025 and the subsequent order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, which cancelled her GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, and penalties. She relied on a previous order by a coordinate bench in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.) which condoned delay in invoking proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, subject to deposit of dues. The Opposite Party, represented by the Addl. Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned 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, considering her undertaking to pay all dues, in light of the principles laid down in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.? (Question of law and fact, turning on proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules). Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that her case is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, subject to deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, and penalty. She sought similar relief, including condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The Addl. Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled her undertaking to deposit the amounts due, the authority would proceed accordingly. No specific arguments against the Petitioner's claim were recorded.