Ramesh Barik vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Bhubaneswar Iii Circle, Khurda
Held
The Court condoned the delay in the petitioner's application for revocation of his GST registration. Following the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, the Court directed that subject to the petitioner depositing all due taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and complying with other formalities, his application for revocation would be considered in accordance with the law. The Court found that granting this relief was in the interest of revenue. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, Ramesh Barik, challenged a show cause notice dated February 3, 2023, and an order dated May 8, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar III Circle, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sums required for his returns to be accepted by the Department. He relied on a previous order by a coordinate bench in W.P.(C) No. 30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others), arguing his case for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by that precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration should be condoned, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply with all statutory dues and formalities? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the intent of the GST legislation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his situation was similar to that in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in filing the application for revocation of registration. He contended that he was ready and willing to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums due, and therefore, his prayer for condonation of delay and subsequent consideration of his application should be granted. He relied on the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or the opposite party. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue's interest would be served by the petitioner's compliance.
Sections Cited
Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 15.10.2026
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 3rd February, 2023 followed by order dated 8th May, 2024 cancelling his client’s registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits, his client is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the Department. He relies on order dated 16th November, 2022 of coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT &
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.