Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir Range

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The Petitioner undertook to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other sums due, along with the return. The Department conceded that upon such compliance, the authority would consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration certificate. The Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Subsequently, the Opposite Party (the revenue authority) was directed to consider the application for revocation of the registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of in view of this conceded position and the operative directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio), challenged a show cause notice dated August 14, 2025, and the subsequent order dated November 4, 2025, by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Balangir Range, which cancelled the Petitioner's registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. 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 rule and directed consideration of revocation applications subject to deposit of dues. The Department conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would consider the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration certificate, filed after a delay, should be considered in light of the undertaking to pay all dues, as per the principles laid down in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022)? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that their case is covered by the aforementioned coordinate bench's order, which condoned delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all dues. They sought similar relief. Revenue's contention: The Learned Counsel for the Department conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the required amounts, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.