M/S. Dilip Kumar Mohanty, Khordha vs. Comnr Of CT And GST, Cuttack
Held
The Court directed the refund of the excess amount recovered from the petitioner's e-ledger, limiting the revenue's retention to a maximum of 20% of the disputed tax, following a previous High Court order.
Facts
The petitioner filed an appeal against a tax demand order and deposited 10% of the demand, with the balance stayed. Despite the stay, the revenue recovered the balance from the petitioner's e-ledger. The first appellate authority's order is also impugned as the Tribunal is not constituted.
Key Issues
Whether the revenue can recover the balance tax demand when an appeal is pending and the Tribunal is not constituted? What is the extent of pre-deposit required in the absence of a functional Tribunal?
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2024
Mrs. Wallace, learned advocate virtually appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client had preferred appeal against order dated 14th March, 2022 of the proper officer directing tax demand of ₹6,14,242/- under sect
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.