Jitendra Kumar Biswal vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the State revenue notification corresponded to the Central notification, reducing the deposit requirement. The deposit was to be made accordingly.
Facts
The petitioner sought to appeal an order from the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal was not yet constituted. The petitioner was subject to deposit conditions for a stay, which had been modified by a Central government notification.
Key Issues
Whether the State revenue's deposit requirement for a stay should be reduced to align with a Central government notification, given the non-constitution of the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2024
Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order date
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.