M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner should make the payments as undertaken within two weeks. Upon such payment, 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 Court noted the conceded position of the Opposite Parties and the Petitioner's willingness to comply with the financial obligations. The reasoning was based on the precedent set in W.P.(C) No. 30374 of 2022, which allowed for condonation of delay in revocation applications subject to payment of dues. The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities should consider revocation of GST registration cancellations if the taxpayer clears all outstanding dues and complies with procedural requirements, even if there are initial delays, following established judicial precedent. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Sahadev Malik, challenged a show cause notice dated July 7, 2025, an order dated August 26, 2025, and Form GST APL-02 dated July 2, 2026, which cancelled their GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues. They 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 applying for revocation of cancellation was condoned subject to deposit of dues. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Additional Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would process the revocation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be considered, despite potential delays, subject to payment of all dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST Rules). Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that their case is covered by the precedent set in W.P.(C) No. 30374 of 2022, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) and directed consideration of the revocation application upon deposit of all dues. They sought similar relief. Revenue's contention: The Opposite Parties, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the amounts due, the concerned authority would proceed accordingly. They did not contest the Petitioner's reliance on the cited precedent.