Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of registration, is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Court noted the conceded position of the Department's counsel. The ratio decidendi is that if a taxpayer is willing to clear all outstanding dues and comply with procedural formalities, and has a reasonable basis for delay or non-compliance, the GST authorities should consider the revocation of cancelled registration, following the principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents. The operative directions were that the Petitioner must make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party is directed to consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, Biswanath Pradhan, challenged a show cause notice dated 08.08.2023 and an order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, which cancelled the Petitioner's GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. The Petitioner relied on a previous order by 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 a rule and directed consideration of revocation subject to payment of dues. The Standing Counsel for the Department 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 Opposite Party, should be revoked upon payment of all dues and compliance with formalities, considering the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions and rules, specifically regarding cancellation and revocation of registration). Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and directed consideration of revocation upon payment of dues. The Petitioner is ready to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's Argument: The Standing Counsel for the Department, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that in the event the Petitioner complies with the requirement and deposits the amount as undertaken, the concerned authority shall take necessary action.