M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's writ petition would be disposed of based on the conceded position of the parties. The Petitioner was directed to make all the payments as undertaken within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party (Revenue) was directed to consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration certificate within a period not later than six weeks from the date of the order. The Court relied on the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, where a similar approach was taken by condoning delay and directing consideration of revocation subject to payment of dues. The issue of whether the delay in seeking revocation should be condoned was implicitly decided in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of the conceded position and the reliance on the prior order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Archana Agro, challenged a show cause notice dated 13.08.2025 and the subsequent order dated 15.09.2025, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha, which cancelled their GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other applicable sums. They 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 subject to payment of dues. The Revenue conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the payment undertaking, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's GST registration, cancelled by an order dated 15.09.2025, should be revoked upon payment of all dues, considering the delay in seeking revocation. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that their case for relief, including condonation of delay for revocation of cancellation, is squarely covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. They are prepared to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills their undertaking to deposit all outstanding amounts and comply with other formalities, the concerned authority should consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration.