Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration Allowed Upon Payment of Dues and Compliance with Formalities

Summary in Key Points:

Issue: The assessee’s GST registration was canceled, and they filed a delayed application for revocation.
Facts: The assessee challenged the cancellation order and expressed willingness to pay all outstanding dues, including taxes, interest, penalties, etc., to have their registration restored.
Decision: Following the precedent set in Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner, the High Court allowed the revocation of the cancellation order.
Conditions: The court directed the tax authorities to consider the assessee’s application for revocation, provided they deposit all outstanding dues and comply with other required formalities.

Analysis:

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of allowing businesses to rectify their non-compliance and continue operations.
The court’s decision provides a pathway for taxpayers to restore their GST registration even after cancellation, as long as they demonstrate a genuine intention to comply and fulfill their tax obligations.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Gouramohan Kunda

Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.)

Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.30987 of 2024

DECEMBER 12, 2024

Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunil Mishra, Adv. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 25^th January, 2021 followed by order dated 4^th February, 2021 cancelling his client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits, his client is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the department. He relies on order dated 16^th November, 2022 of coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) no.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others). He submits, his client’s claim to relief including prayer for condonation of delay is covered by said order.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the department.

3. We reproduce below paragraph-2 from said order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises (supra).

“2. In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.”

Likewise direction is made in this writ petition. Petitioner gets the relief in the interest of revenue.

4. The writ petition is disposed of.