Case Law Details
Bhakta Ram Purohit Vs Commissioner of CT and GST (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court granted interim relief to Bhakta Ram Purohit in a GST appeal due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the First Appellate Authority’s order dated May 31, 2024 but was unable to file an appeal before the Tribunal since it was not yet established. Referring to a previous order in Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha (WP(C) No. 42015 of 2023), the petitioner sought a similar relief where the Court directed assessees to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing an appeal, with an additional 20% of the remaining tax for the stay of the impugned order.
During proceedings, the petitioner argued that a subsequent notification issued on August 16, 2024, by the Central Government reduced the additional deposit requirement to 10%, which was later adopted by the State Government on October 29, 2024. Acknowledging this, the Court modified the relief, requiring the petitioner to deposit only 10% of the remaining disputed tax for the stay of the First Appellate Authority’s order. With this, the writ petition was disposed of, ensuring compliance with revised deposit requirements while allowing the petitioner to seek further recourse once the Appellate Tribunal is constituted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. 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 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. Das, learned advocate, Additional 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
