M/S Utkal Udyog vs. Commissioner CT And GST
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Utkal Udyog, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging the mandatory requirement under Section 107 of the Orissa Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act), read with Rule 108 of the OGST Rules, to deposit 10% of the demand as a pre-deposit for an appeal to be considered. The Petitioner stated an inability to upload the appeal due to a lack of financial means at that stage. The Petitioner relied on a decision from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kelmar (India) Exports v. State of Punjab, urging the Court to waive or reduce the pre-deposit percentage. The Opposite Parties were the Commissioner CT & GST and others.
Held
The Court held that Section 107 of the OGST Act, read with Rule 108 of the OGST Rules, mandates a 10% pre-deposit for an appeal to be considered, and this provision is mandatory. The Court found no discretion with the appellate authority to waive this requirement, nor could the High Court direct the appellate forum to act contrary to the statute. The Court distinguished the precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kelmar (India) Exports, noting it was under a different statute (Punjab Value Added Tax Act) and on different facts. The Court observed that upon making the 10% pre-deposit, the balance 90% of the demand automatically stays, which it considered not unfair or unreasonable. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Orissa High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can waive or reduce the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the demand required under Section 107 of the OGST Act, read with Rule 108 of the OGST Rules, to enable a petitioner with financial constraints to file an appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that due to financial inability, they could not meet the pre-deposit requirement and sought intervention under Article 226, citing the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Kelmar (India) Exports v. State of Punjab, where the pre-deposit was reduced. Opposite Parties' Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Opposite Parties, but the Court's reasoning implies reliance on the statutory provisions.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 108
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Order No. 30.04.2021 02. 1. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the requirement under Section 107 of the Orissa Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act), read with Rule 108 of Orissa Goods and Service Tax Rules (OGST Rules) that mandates deposit of 10% of the demand as a pre- deposit for the appeal to be considered.
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner has no financial means at this stage, his is unable to be even upload
the appeal without pre-deposit. Relying upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kelmar (India) Exports v. State of Punjab (CWP No.17975 of 2020 decided on 2nd November, 2020), he urges that the Court shou
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.