Lokanath Naik Vs Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST
Date: March 5, 2025
Subject Matter
Delay in filing for revocation condoned based on the taxpayer’s commitment to pay all outstanding tax dues, including interest, late fees, and penalties
Summary
The Orissa High Court addressed the case of Lokanath Naik, whose GST registration was cancelled following a show cause notice and subsequent order from the tax authorities. The petitioner sought to revive this registration despite missing the statutory timeline for revocation. The court condoned the delay in filing for revocation based on the petitioner’s commitment to pay all outstanding tax dues, including interest, late fees, and penalties. The decision highlighted a previous ruling (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST) with similar circumstances, where the court had allowed a delayed revocation application under specific conditions, particularly the payment of dues. The Orissa High Court decided similarly, granting relief to the petitioner on the condition that all financial obligations towards the tax authorities must be met. The court noted that this approach not only served the interest of the petitioner but also worked in favor of the revenue department, as it allowed for the potential recovery of outstanding taxes, enabling the taxpayer to resume business activities. Ultimately, the court directed that upon fulfilling the requisite payments and formalities, the Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST should consider the petitioner’s application for revocation in accordance with law. The case underscores the court’s sympathetic stance towards taxpayers willing to comply financially, despite procedural delays, thereby promoting broader economic involvement and revenue collection.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 25th May, 2019 followed by order dated 7th June, 2019 cancelling his client’s registration under Central 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 16th 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 revenue.
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.