M/S Alok Kumar Sethi, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's undertaking to pay all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required, along with the return, was accepted. The Court relied on the conceded position of the Opposite Parties and the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises). Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to make the payments within two weeks. Upon such payment, the Opposite Parties were 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 Writ Petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Alok Kumar Sethi, challenged a show cause notice dated 04.08.2025 and an order dated 07.10.2025 by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, which cancelled their GST registration certificate. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty, 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.), which condoned delay in applying for revocation of registration upon deposit of dues. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, conceded that if the Petitioner complied with their undertaking, the concerned authority would consider the revocation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's delay in seeking revocation of their GST registration, following its cancellation, should be condoned, considering their undertaking to pay all dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules). Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that their situation is covered by the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, where a coordinate bench condoned the delay in revocation applications upon deposit of taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. They are ready and willing to make all such payments. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, perused the cited order and conceded that if the Petitioner fulfilled their undertaking to deposit the amounts due, the authority would proceed accordingly.