Arun Kumar Mallik vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs,Bbsr

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.). The Revenue conceded to this position. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make all payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Parties were 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 directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Mallik, challenged a show cause notice dated 08.03.2025 and an order dated 08.10.2025 cancelling his GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, and penalties. He 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 Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, subject to deposit of dues. The Revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments within two weeks and the Opposite Parties to consider the revocation application within six weeks thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in seeking revocation of his GST registration, subject to payment of all dues, in light of the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises? Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner argued that his case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, and penalties. The Petitioner stated his readiness to make these payments. Revenue's argument: The Revenue, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking to deposit the required amounts, the concerned authority would take necessary action.