Deposit requirement for stay of appellate order in GST reduced to 10%.
Summary in Key Points:
- Issue: Whether the interim relief granted in a GST appeal should be modified in light of a revised notification reducing the deposit requirement for a stay on the impugned order.
- Facts: The assessee, aggrieved by an order of the First Appellate Authority, sought to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which was not yet constituted. An earlier court order required the assessee to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount to obtain a stay on the impugned order. However, subsequent notifications by the Central and State revenue authorities reduced this deposit requirement to 10%.
- Decision: The High Court modified its earlier order, reducing the deposit requirement for the stay on the impugned order to 10% of the disputed tax amount, in line with the revised notifications.
Decision:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, modifying its earlier order and reducing the deposit requirement for the stay on the impugned order. The court clarified the following:
- Revised Deposit Requirement: The Central and State revenue authorities had reduced the deposit requirement for a stay on the first appellate order from 20% to 10%.
- Modification of Earlier Order: The court modified its earlier order to align with the revised notifications and ensure consistency in the application of the law.
- Reduced Deposit for Stay: The assessee now only needs to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount to obtain a stay on the impugned order.
Important Note: This case demonstrates the High Court’s willingness to adapt its orders to reflect changes in the legal framework and ensure fairness to taxpayers. The court’s decision to reduce the deposit requirement for the stay aligns with the revised notifications and provides relief to the assessee. This approach promotes accessibility to the appeals process and ensures that taxpayers are not subjected to undue financial burdens while seeking justice.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Srinivas Pradhan
v.
Joint Commissioner of CT and GST
Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 30698 of 2024
DECEMBER 17, 2024
M.K. Mohanty, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. Mishra, SC for the Respondent.
ORDER
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.