The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Bimal Kishore Sahu v. Additional Commissioner, GST (Appeals) [W.P.(C) NO. 20383 OF 2024, September 2, 2024] held that delay in filing an application for revocation of cancelled registration under GST could be condoned, subject to payment of tax, interest, penalty, and late fee.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Bimal Kishore Sahu, received a show cause notice dated May 8, 2023, followed by an order dated June 22, 2023, cancelling his registration under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Aggrieved by this cancellation, the Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging both the show cause notice and the cancellation order.
During the proceedings, Mr. P. Panda, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that his client was ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other sum required for the department to accept his client's return form. To support his case, Mr. Panda relied on a previous order dated November 16, 2022, of a coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) no.30374 of 2022 (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others). He argued that his client's claim for relief, including the prayer for condonation of delay, was covered by the said order.
Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the department (the Respondent), submitted that the Petitioner's appeal had been rejected. However, the details of this rejection were not elaborated upon in the court's order.
Issue:
Whether the delay in filing an application for revocation of cancelled registration under GST can be condoned?
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Bimal Kishore Sahu v. Additional Commissioner, GST (Appeals) [W.P.(C) NO. 20383 OF 2024, September 2, 2024] held that:
The court observed that the Petitioner's case was similar to the previously decided case of M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others. Following this precedent, the court held that the delay in the Petitioner invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) could be condoned.
The court directed that the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration would be considered in accordance with law, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the requirement for the Petitioner to deposit all taxes due, pay all interest accrued, any applicable late fees, any penalties imposed, and comply with other formalities as required.
The Hon'ble Court emphasized that this direction was made in the interest of revenue. It explicitly stated that the Petitioner would get relief in the interest of revenue, thereby balancing the interests of the Petitioner and the tax department.
The court opined that by allowing the Petitioner to comply with the tax obligations and other formalities, it would serve the broader purpose of tax collection while also providing an opportunity for the Petitioner to regularize his registration status.
It is noteworthy that the court did not provide any specific timeline for the Petitioner to comply with these conditions or for the department to consider the application for revocation. Additionally, the order did not specify any consequences if the Petitioner failed to comply with the conditions set by the court.
Finally, the Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, effectively providing a pathway for the Petitioner to seek revocation of the cancelled registration while ensuring that all due taxes and fees would be paid to the department.
Relevant Sections:
"Section 30 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017"
"Rule 23 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017"
Pari Materia / Cases Referred:
Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner CT & GST, W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, decided on 16-11-2022
The court heavily relied on this case, reproducing paragraph 2 from the order in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises, which formed the basis for the decision in the current case.
________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
Yorumlar