M/S. Prasanta Kumar Swain, Keonjhar vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal), CT And GST, Jajpur
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the deposit requirement for staying the impugned order should be reduced to 10% of the remaining disputed tax, aligning with a Central revenue notification.
Facts
The petitioner sought a stay on an order from the First Appellate Authority and wanted to appeal to the Tribunal, which was not yet constituted. The petitioner was aggrieved by the deposit requirement for the stay.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the deposit amount required for a stay order pending appeal, especially when the Tribunal is not constituted and considering recent notifications reducing such deposit requirements.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 02.12.2024
WP(C) no.29740 of 2024 and I.A. no.15855 of 2024
Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 28th June, 2024 made by the First Appellate Authority. It 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 Order No.
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 inclu
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.