Sabita Khosla vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Rayagada-Ii Range, Rayagada

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Revenue conceded to this position. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon the Petitioner's compliance, the Opposite Party (Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise) was directed to 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 Writ Petition was disposed of in light of these observations.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sabita Khosla, challenged a show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 and an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Rayagada-II Range, which cancelled her GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues. She 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.) where delay in invoking a rule was condoned subject to deposit of dues. The Revenue's counsel conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of cancelled GST registration should be condoned, and if so, on what conditions? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the discretion of the Court under its writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that her situation was covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) upon deposit of all dues. She sought similar relief, including condonation of delay. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue's counsel, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled her undertaking to deposit the amounts due, the authority would proceed accordingly. No specific arguments against the Petitioner's plea were recorded.