M/S. Dnc Infrastructure PVT. LTD, Bbsr vs. The State Tax Officer, CT And GST Circle-1, Bbsr
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that a recent notification reduced the further deposit requirement to 10% of the remaining disputed tax for the impugned order to be stayed. 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. Previous directions required a 10% deposit of disputed tax and a further 20% for a stay.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the deposit requirement for a stay pending appeal to an unconstituted Tribunal, in light of recent notifications reducing such requirements.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 10.12.2024
Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 2nd August, 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 assessees and the department were complying with directions made on order dated 16th February, 2024 by the First Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being WP(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others).
The directions included requiring the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax on filing the appeal and furth
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.