M/S. Susanta Mohanty, Gandarpur, Cuttack vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for relief, including the condonation of delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, was covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The revenue department conceded to this position. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party (Principal Commissioner of CGST, Bhubaneswar) was directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration certificate within a period not exceeding six weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner undertakes to clear all tax liabilities and relies on a binding precedent for condonation of delay in seeking revocation of registration, the authorities should consider the application favorably upon compliance. The writ petition was disposed of based on this conceded position and the operative directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Susanta Mohanty, a proprietorship firm, challenged a show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 and the subsequent order dated 02.09.2025 by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhubaneswar, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. They relied on a prior order of 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 the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. The revenue department conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration should be considered in light of their undertaking to pay all dues, including taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties, and in view of the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case is covered by the order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of dues. They were ready and willing to make all necessary payments. Revenue's Contention: The Junior Standing Counsel for the department, upon reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the amounts, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.