Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTOrissa High Court Stays 10% Pre-Deposit Demand On Remaining Disputed Tax Under...

Orissa High Court Stays 10% Pre-Deposit Demand On Remaining Disputed Tax Under GST

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Orissa High Court has stayed 10% pre-deposit demand on remaining disputed tax under GST.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo has observed that there was a notification dated 16th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing the 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 with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for order to remain stayed.

The appellant/assessee has challenged the order made by the First Appellate Authority. The 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 further 20% of remaining disputed tax, for the impugned order to be stayed.

The court accepted submission on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for first appellate order to remain stayed. 

Case Details

Case Title: Boddapati Rama Versus Joint Commissioner of State Tax

Case No.: W.P.(C) No.4890 of 2025

Date: 20.02.2025

Counsel For Appellant: Itishree Tripathy

Counsel For Respondent: D. Das

Read More: ‘Intellectual Property’ Right Not A Provision For Incentivizing Innovation, CESTAT Remands Back To Decide Refund Of Accumulated CENVAT Credit 

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Frequent BharatKosh Disruptions Trigger Demand for CCFS-2026 Extension Till September 30

Corporate professionals and other stakeholders have urged the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to...

One-Year Limitation U/s 11B Of Central Excise Act Not Applicable to Refund of Cess Paid by Mistake: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that the one-year limitation prescribed under Section 11B...

Plea Seeking Mandatory Disclosure of Exact Ethanol Content in Petrol: Supreme Court Declines To Entertain

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition seeking mandatory disclosure of...

More like this

Frequent BharatKosh Disruptions Trigger Demand for CCFS-2026 Extension Till September 30

Corporate professionals and other stakeholders have urged the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to...

One-Year Limitation U/s 11B Of Central Excise Act Not Applicable to Refund of Cess Paid by Mistake: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that the one-year limitation prescribed under Section 11B...