R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others. The Court noted the conceded position of the revenue that necessary action would be taken if the petitioner fulfilled their undertaking. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the opposite party (revenue) was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer willing to clear all dues and comply with formalities can seek condonation of delay for revocation of cancelled GST registration, following established judicial precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, R.K. Service Station, challenged a show cause notice dated April 5, 2024, and the subsequent order dated May 6, 2024, issued by the Commissioner of CT & GST and others, which cancelled its GST registration certificate. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other applicable sums along with the return. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a coordinate bench in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others) which condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, subject to deposit of dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be condoned, considering their undertaking to pay all dues. (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief similar to that granted in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others, subject to fulfilling payment obligations. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their situation is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which allowed for condonation of delay upon deposit of all dues and compliance with formalities. They are ready and willing to make these payments. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner complies with the undertaking and deposits the amounts, the concerned authority shall take necessary action.