Facts of the Case

M/s. Bikram Enterprises approached the High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 25343 of 2022. The matter concerned delay on the part of the Petitioner in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules in relation to the revocation application.

During the hearing, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CGST, appearing for the Opposite Parties on advance notice, stated that so long as the delay in filing the revocation application was condoned, and provided the Petitioner complied with all requirements relating to payment of taxes, interest, late fee, penalty and other dues, the 3B Return Form filed by the Petitioner would be accepted by the Opposite Parties.

The matter therefore centered on condonation of delay, compliance with statutory liabilities, consideration of the revocation application in accordance with law, and enabling the Petitioner to file the GST return through the portal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay in the Petitioner invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules could be condoned.
  2. Whether the Petitioner’s application for revocation could be considered in accordance with law upon payment of all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty and other amounts due.
  3. Whether the proper officer could be directed to open the GST portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST return after compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court.
  4. Whether the 3B Return Form filed by the Petitioner could be accepted subject to condonation of delay and fulfillment of statutory requirements.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by learned counsel Ms. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, sought relief in relation to the delayed invocation of the proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules and the consequential processing of the revocation application.

The substance of the Petitioner’s case was that the delay should be condoned so that, upon fulfillment of the required statutory obligations and formalities, the revocation application could be considered and the GST return could be filed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Opposite Parties were represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel for CGST, Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka.

On advance notice, the Respondents stated before the Court that:

  • provided the delay in filing the revocation application was condoned; and
  • provided the Petitioner complied with all requirements concerning payment of taxes, interest, late fee, penalty and other dues,

the 3B Return Form filed by the Petitioner would be accepted by the Opposite Parties.

Thus, the Respondents’ stand was conditional upon full statutory compliance by the Petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court of Orissa disposed of the writ petition with the following findings and directions:

  1. Delay Condoned: The delay in the Petitioner invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules was condoned.
  2. Payment of Statutory Dues Required: The relief was made subject to the Petitioner depositing all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty and other amounts due.
  3. Compliance with Formalities: The Petitioner was also required to comply with other necessary formalities.
  4. Revocation Application to Be Considered: Subject to such payment and compliance, the Petitioner’s application for revocation was directed to be considered in accordance with law.
  5. Certified Copy before Proper Officer: The Petitioner was required to produce a certified copy of the Court’s order before the proper officer.
  6. GST Portal to Be Opened: Subject to the Petitioner complying with the stipulated conditions, the proper officer was directed to open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST return.
  7. Writ Petition Disposed Of: The writ petition was disposed of in the above terms.

Important Clarification

The Court did not grant unconditional revocation merely because the delay was condoned. The relief remained expressly subject to the Petitioner:

  • depositing all taxes due;
  • paying applicable interest;
  • paying late fee;
  • paying penalty, wherever due;
  • complying with other required formalities; and
  • producing the certified copy of the Court’s order before the proper officer.

Only upon compliance with these conditions was the proper officer required to open the portal to enable filing of the GST return, and the revocation application was to be considered in accordance with law.

A further important aspect is that the Respondents themselves stated before the Court that, once the delay was condoned and the Petitioner complied with all statutory payment requirements, the 3B Return Form filed by the Petitioner would be accepted.

Section / Rule Involved

Proviso to Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Rule 23 concerns revocation of cancellation of registration. In the present case, the High Court specifically dealt with the delay in the Petitioner invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules.

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783323385_1219compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.