M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's GST registration could be considered for revocation, subject to their compliance with the undertaking to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required. The Court relied on the conceded position of the revenue and the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration, once cancelled, can be revoked if the taxpayer undertakes to clear all liabilities and complies with the undertaking within a stipulated period, and the authorities are directed to consider such applications sympathetically. The operative direction was for the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks, and upon such payment, the Opposite Party was 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, M/s. Jyoti Consultants, Cuttack, challenged a show cause notice dated 16.06.2025 and an order dated 19.09.2025 by the Pr. Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. They relied on a coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022), which condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of revocation subject to deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's GST registration, cancelled by the order dated 19.09.2025, can be revoked upon payment of all dues, including taxes, interest, late fee, and penalty, despite any delay in seeking revocation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, wherein 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 all dues. They submitted they are ready to pay all amounts required. Revenue's contention: The revenue, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority would proceed as required.