Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case was covered by the order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The Petitioner was directed to make all the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party (the revenue) was directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of his 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 Department. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of these directions. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer's willingness to clear all dues, coupled with a judicial precedent allowing condonation of delay for revocation applications upon such payment, warrants a direction for the revenue to consider the revocation application.

Facts

The Petitioner, Biswanath Rana, challenged a show cause notice dated 3rd February, 2023, and an order dated 12th December, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other amounts due along with the return. He relied on a previous order from 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 the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of the application for revocation subject to deposit of dues. The Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would take necessary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's delay in seeking revocation of GST registration cancellation should be condoned, considering his undertaking to pay all dues. (Question of law and fact, turning on the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules). Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that his case is covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. He expressed readiness to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's Argument: The Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled his undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly. No specific arguments against condonation or payment were recorded.