M/S. Srinivas Pradhan, Ganjam vs. Joint Comnr Of CT And GST, Ganjam
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 Central revenue notification. The deposit is to be made accordingly.
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the First Appellate Authority and wishes to appeal to the Tribunal, which is not yet constituted. The petitioner seeks a modification of deposit requirements for a stay on the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the deposit requirement for a stay on an appellate order can be modified in light of subsequent notifications, given the non-constitution of the Tribunal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2024
Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 27th September, 2024 made by the First Appellate Authority. He wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet been constituted. In the circumstan
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.