Bhakta Ram Purohit vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, Cuttack
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the deposit requirement for staying the first appellate order should be reduced to 10% of the remaining disputed tax, aligning with a recent notification.
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 conditions for staying the impugned order, referencing a previous High Court order and subsequent notifications.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the deposit amount required for a stay of the First Appellate Authority's order in the absence of a constituted Tribunal, and whether recent notifications should be applied.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2024
Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 31st May, 2024 made by the First Appellate Authority. He wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet bee
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.