Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,Khurda

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 the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Party (Revenue) 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 Court effectively condoned the delay in the Petitioner's compliance, subject to her fulfilling the financial obligations, and directed the authority to reconsider the revocation application in light of her undertaking and the precedent relied upon. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved by consent and direction.

Facts

The Petitioner, Susmita Das, challenged a show cause notice dated 17.12.2024 and an order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, which cancelled her GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other applicable sums along with the return. 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.), 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 conceded that if the Petitioner complied with her undertaking, the concerned authority would take necessary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's GST registration, cancelled by an order dated 08.07.2025, should be revoked upon payment of all dues, considering the delay in compliance, turning on the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that her 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 consideration of the revocation application subject to the deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, and penalty. She expressed readiness to make these payments. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled her undertaking to deposit the amounts due and complied with other formalities, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly.