Orissa High Court Condones Delay Under Rule 23, Directs
Consideration of GST Registration Revocation on Merits
Maa
Bhagabati Swayam Sahayak Gosthi vs Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, W.P.(C)
No. 7798 of 2026, Orissa High Court
(Article Written By: Adv. Parash Biswal)
Introduction
The Hon’ble Orissa High
Court has held that delay in filing an application for revocation of
cancellation of GST registration is condonable under the proviso to Rule 23 of
the GST Rules and cannot, by itself, defeat a bona fide claim for
restoration. Granting relief to a Self-Help Group whose GST registration was
cancelled due to non-filing of returns, the Orissa High Court directed the
authorities to consider the revocation application on merits, subject to
compliance with statutory requirements. The Court emphasised that where an
assessee is willing to discharge tax dues and regularise filings, denial of
revocation on technical grounds of delay would be contrary to the interest of
revenue.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Maa
Bhagabati Swayam Sahayak Gosthi, is a rural women Self-Help Group engaged in
processing grains and manufacturing Chatua (multi-grain powder). The GST
registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the department on the ground of
non-filing of returns.
Aggrieved by the
cancellation, the petitioner approached the department for revocation of
registration. However, the application for revocation was not entertained on
the ground of delay in filing.
The petitioner then
approached the Orissa High Court, submitting that the delay occurred due to
circumstances beyond its control and that it was ready and willing to file all
pending returns and discharge the entire tax liability along with applicable interest,
late fees and penalties.
Legal Issue Before the
Court
The primary issue before
the Court was whether delay in filing an application for revocation of
cancellation of GST registration can be condoned under the proviso to Rule 23
of the GST Rules, and whether the application should be considered on merits
where the taxpayer is willing to comply with statutory requirements.
Reference to Earlier
Judgment
While deciding the
matter, the Orissa High Court relied on its earlier decision dated 16th
November, 2022 in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner, CT & GST,
W.P.(C) No.30374 of 2022, where similar relief had been granted. In that
case, the Court had held that delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 can be
condoned, subject to the taxpayer complying with statutory requirements such as
payment of tax, interest and penalties.
The Court followed the
same principle in the present case to maintain consistency in judicial
approach.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that
where a taxpayer expresses readiness to comply with statutory obligations,
denial of revocation merely on technical grounds of delay would defeat the
purpose of the GST framework. It noted that that granting an opportunity to
restore registration would serve the interest of revenue, as it enables
recovery of tax dues and ensures continued compliance.
Final Decision
Based on the facts of the
case and the earlier judicial precedent, the Orissa High Court condoned the
delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the GST Rules. The Court directed
that, subject to the petitioner depositing all due taxes, interest, late fees
and penalties and complying with other statutory requirements, the application
for revocation of cancellation of GST registration shall be considered in
accordance with law.
The writ petition was
accordingly disposed of.
Conclusion
This judgment highlights
that cancellation of GST registration is not necessarily final and can be
revisited where the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide intent to comply.
The Orissa High Court has adopted a balanced approach by ensuring that
procedural delays do not override substantive compliance.
The ruling sends a clear
message that genuine taxpayers, particularly small entities and self-help
groups, should not be denied relief merely on technical grounds when they are
willing to regularise their defaults and fulfill their legal obligations.
·
Case Name: Maa Bhagabati Swayam Sahayak
Gosthi vs Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, W.P.(C) No. 7798 of 2026,
Orissa High Court
·
Order Date: 26.03.2026
·
Coram: Hon’ Ble Chief Justice Harish
Tandon and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
·
Petitioner was represented by Parash
Biswal, Advocate and Opposite Party, was represented by Mr. Debasish Pattnaik,
Junior Standing Counsel
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular advisory and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
