Assessee granted opportunity to revoke cancellation of registration upon payment of dues.

Summary in Key Points:

Issue: Should the delay in filing the application for revocation of GST registration cancellation be condoned?
Facts: The assessee’s registration was cancelled. The assessee filed a revocation application, but there was a delay.
Decision: Citing Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner, CT & GST, the court condoned the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules. Subject to the assessee depositing all outstanding dues (taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, etc.) and complying with other formalities, the revocation application was to be considered according to the law.

Important Note: This decision, consistent with Mohanty Enterprises, favors condoning delays in revocation applications when the assessee is willing to rectify non-compliance by paying all dues. It emphasizes that the focus is on tax compliance and revenue collection, not rigid adherence to timelines, especially when the assessee demonstrates good faith and a willingness to cooperate.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Binita Readymade Traders

CT and GST Officer

Arindam Sinha AND M.S. Sahoo, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.30035 of 2024

DECEMBER 4, 2024

Debrat Sethy, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. Das, ASC for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr. Sethy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 20^th November, 2021 followed by order dated 30^th November, 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. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the department. We notice he had appeared in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises (supra).

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.