Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer for relief, including condonation of delay, was covered by the precedent in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with her undertaking to deposit all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other sums, the concerned authority would consider her application for revocation of the cancelled registration. The Court directed the petitioner to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the opposite party 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 writ petition was disposed of in view of this conceded position and the directions issued.

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi, challenged a show cause notice dated May 24, 2025, and the subsequent order dated June 24, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST, Cuttack-II Circle, which cancelled her GST registration. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other required sums along with her returns. She relied on a coordinate bench's order in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.) where delay in invoking a rule was condoned subject to deposit of dues. The revenue conceded that if the petitioner complied with the undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration should be condoned, considering her undertaking to pay all dues, in light of the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors.? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and statutory interpretation of relevant rules). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that her case is covered by the coordinate bench's order, which condoned delay and directed consideration of revocation applications upon deposit of dues. She sought similar relief. Revenue's contention: The revenue, upon perusal of the cited order, conceded that if the petitioner fulfilled her undertaking to deposit the amounts, the authority would proceed to consider the application for revocation of cancellation.