M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case was covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. The Petitioner was directed to make all payments, including tax, interest, late fee, and penalty, within two weeks. Upon such compliance, the Opposite Party was directed to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of their registration certificate within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court found this course of action to be in line with the conceded position of the Opposite Party and the precedent relied upon by the Petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where a taxpayer is willing to clear all dues and comply with formalities, and a departmental authority concedes to this approach, the High Court will direct the authorities to consider the revocation of registration cancellation, potentially condoning delays in compliance.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Pitabas Jena, challenged a show cause notice dated 14.08.2025 and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Superintendent, Cuttack III Range, Cuttack, which cancelled the Petitioner's GST registration. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, and penalty. They relied on a previous order from 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 a rule and directed consideration of revocation subject to payment of dues. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Junior Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with their undertaking, the concerned authority would act accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in complying with the requirements for revocation of GST registration cancellation is covered by the precedent set in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises Vrs. The Commissioner, C.T & G.S.T, Odisha, Cuttack and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022)? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that their claim for relief, including condonation of delay, is squarely covered by the aforementioned order of the coordinate bench. They are ready and willing to pay all dues and comply with formalities. Revenue's Argument: The Opposite Party, after reviewing the cited order, conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the required amounts, the authority would proceed as per law. No specific arguments were recorded against the Petitioner's reliance on the precedent.