M/S Jaleswar Packaging, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Petitioner is directed to make all payments, including taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties, within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party (Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise) is directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of its registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted the conceded position of the Revenue that necessary action would be taken if the Petitioner complied with its undertaking. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Jaleswar Packaging, challenged a show cause notice dated January 6, 2026, and the subsequent order dated February 9, 2026, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-IX Range, which cancelled its GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues. The Petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors., which condoned delay in invoking a rule for revocation of registration, subject to deposit of dues. The Revenue conceded that if the Petitioner complied with the undertaking, the authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in seeking revocation of GST registration cancellation, subject to payment of all dues, in light of the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that its claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a similar request was granted upon deposit of all taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. They are ready and willing to fulfill these conditions. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfills its undertaking to deposit the required amounts, the concerned authority would proceed to consider the application for revocation of the cancelled registration.