BharatTaxGST

Debendra Nath Dutta vs. Commissioner Of State Tax, Commissioner Of CT And GST

Original PDF →
WP(C)/8052/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01018295202521 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner sought to appeal an order from the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal was not yet constituted. Previous directions required a 10% deposit of disputed tax and 20% of the remaining disputed tax for a stay.

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the deposit requirement for a stay should be reduced to 10% of the remaining disputed tax, aligning with recent notifications.

Key Issues

The primary issue was the deposit amount required for a stay of the first appellate order in the absence of a constituted Tribunal, and whether recent notifications reducing deposit requirements should be applied.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8052 of 2025 Debendra Nath Dutta …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate Mr. J.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- Commissioner of State Tax, Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. D. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER 21.03.2025

W.P.(C) No.8052 of 2025 and I.A. no.4371 of 2025

1.

Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 5th April, 2024 made by the First Appellate Authority. It wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet been constituted. In the circumstances assessee and the department were complying with directions made on order dated 16th February, 2024 by the First Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being WP(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others). Order No.

01.2.

The directions included requiring the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax on filing the appeal and further 20% of remaining disputed tax, for the impugned order to be stayed.

3.

He submits, his client is up against State revenue. There was notification dated 16th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing latter deposit to 10%. Now, State revenue has correspondingly notified on 29th October, 2024. In the circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of as covered by order dated 16th February, 2024 (supra) with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for impugned order to remain stayed.

4.

Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue.

5.

We accept submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. The deposit be made accordingly.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge Jyoti

Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.