Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16475 (ORI)

M/S. KANIKA OCEAN PRIVATE LIMITED, BHADRAK v. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CGST, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, BHUBANESWAR

WP(C)/15225/2026 · 2026-05-15

Harish Tandon Cj, Murahari Sri Raman

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15225 of 2026 M/s. Kanika Ocean Private Limited, Bhadrak …. Petitioner Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 15.05.2026 01. 1. Learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is show cause notice dated 14th August, 2025 followed by order dated 29th September, 2025 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. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the opposite parties-Department. 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. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira