BharatTaxGST

M/S. Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Original PDF →
WP(C)/6069/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01013700202504 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 constituted. The petitioner was subject to deposit conditions for a stay, which were modified by a Central government notification.

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 a recent Central government notification.

Key Issues

The primary issue was the modification of deposit conditions for a stay pending appeal, given the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal and subsequent notifications.

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.6069 of 2025 Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mrs. Z.M. Wallace, Advocate -versus- Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER 04.03.2025

1.

Mrs. Wallace, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client is aggrieved by order dated 17th February, 2025 made by the First Appellate Authority. She wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet been constituted. In the circumstances assessees 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.

She submits, her 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 Sks

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.