M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case is covered by the order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The Petitioner is directed to make all the payments as undertaken within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party (Assistant Commissioner) is directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The reasoning is based on the conceded position of the Revenue and the precedent of the coordinate bench. The ratio decidendi is that if a taxpayer is willing to clear all dues and comply with formalities, and the Revenue concedes, the authorities should consider revocation of cancelled registration, potentially condoning delays. The Writ Petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Himansu Palei, challenged a show cause notice dated 11.02.2025 and the subsequent order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Keonjhar Division, which cancelled the Petitioner's GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other dues along with the return. The Petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's order 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 a proviso and directed consideration of revocation subject to deposit of dues. The Opposite Party (Revenue) conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that their claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is squarely covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a similar direction was issued subject to deposit of dues. They are ready and willing to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums required. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills their undertaking to deposit the required amounts and comply with other formalities, the concerned authority would consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration.