Subrat Kumar Samal vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that in view of the conceded position by the Opposite Parties and the Petitioner's undertaking to pay all dues, the Petitioner should make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party shall consider the application for revocation of the cancellation of the 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, which allowed for condonation of delay in similar circumstances, subject to compliance with financial obligations. The Petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay and consideration of their revocation application was thus granted, contingent on their timely payment. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Subrat Kumar Samal, challenged a show cause notice dated April 28, 2026, and the subsequent order dated May 29, 2026, which cancelled their GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other applicable sums along with their 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 the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application subject to deposit of dues. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would take necessary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of their GST registration certificate should be considered, given their undertaking to pay all dues and the delay in compliance, in light of the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 and directed the authorities to consider the revocation application upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, and penalty. They are ready and willing to make these payments. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, through the Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills their undertaking to deposit the amounts due and complies with other formalities, the concerned authority should proceed accordingly. They did not contest the Petitioner's reliance on the precedent.