Case Law Details
Srinivas Pradhan Vs Joint Commissioner of CT and GST (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court heard a writ petition filed by Srinivas Pradhan, who challenged an order dated September 27, 2024, issued by the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner intended to appeal the decision but faced a hurdle due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. His counsel cited a prior ruling (WP(C) No. 42015 of 2023, M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others), where assessees were allowed to stay appellate orders by depositing 10% of the disputed tax at the time of appeal filing and an additional 20% for a stay. However, a subsequent notification by the Central Revenue on August 16, 2024, reduced the latter deposit requirement to 10%, and the State Revenue issued a corresponding notification on October 29, 2024.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s arguments, the court accepted the modified deposit requirement. It ruled that Pradhan could stay the appellate order by depositing 10% of the remaining disputed tax instead of 20%. This decision aligns with the updated regulations and previous judicial directives. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, ensuring that the petitioner could seek relief without excessive financial burden while awaiting the Tribunal’s formation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 27th September, 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).
2. The directions included requiring the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax on filing the appeal and further 20% of remaining disputed tax, for the impugned order to be stayed.
3. He submits, his client is up against State revenue. There was notification dated 16th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing latter deposit to 10%. Now, State revenue has correspondingly notified on 29th October, 2024. In the circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of as covered by order dated 16th February, 2024 (supra) with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for impugned order to remain stayed.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue.
5. We accept submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. The deposit be made accordingly.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Author Bio
