Case Law Details
Jyotiranjan Nayak Vs Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (Orissa High Court)
In the case of Jyotiranjan Nayak vs. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals), the Orissa High Court addressed the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s counsel argued against the show cause notice issued on May 8, 2023, and the cancellation order dated December 31, 2024. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay outstanding dues, including tax, interest, penalties, and fees, for reinstatement. Relying on a previous ruling in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, the counsel requested similar relief, including condonation of delay.
The court noted that the same government counsel had appeared in the cited case and referred to the relevant order from M/s. Mohanty Enterprises. In that case, the delay in invoking Rule 23 of the OGST Rules was condoned, allowing reinstatement upon payment of dues and compliance with formalities. The court followed the same approach in Nayak’s case, directing that his application for revocation be considered in accordance with the law, provided all outstanding amounts were cleared. The writ petition was disposed of with this directive, ensuring a fair resolution in the interest of revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Ms. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 8th May, 2023 followed by order dated 31st December, 2024 cancelling her client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She submits, her 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. She relies on order dated 16th November, 2022 of coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) no.30374 of 12022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others). She submits, her client’s claim to relief including prayer for condonation of delay is covered by said order.
2. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior 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.
Author Bio
