M/S. Narahari Pradhan, Ganjam vs. Joint Commissioner CT And GST, Ganjam
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that a subsequent notification reduced the deposit requirement for a stay. The Court ordered that the deposit be made accordingly, allowing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax for the stay to be effective.
Facts
The petitioner sought a stay on an order from the First Appellate Authority, appealing to the Tribunal which was not yet constituted. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order that mandated deposit of 10% of disputed tax and 20% of the remaining disputed tax for a stay.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the deposit requirement for obtaining a stay on an appellate order when the Tribunal is not constituted, and whether a subsequent notification reducing this requirement should be applied.
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 29th April, 2024 made by the First Appellate Authority. He wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet been constituted. In the circumstances
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.