TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Grants Partial Relief in GST Appeal, Mandates 20% Tax Deposit and Interim Stay on Remaining Demand</h1> <h3>Raghunath Panigrahi Versus Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack & Others</h3> HC allowed partial relief in GST appeal challenge. Petitioner was required to deposit 20% of disputed tax. Court granted interim stay on remaining tax ... Non-admission of appeal preferred by the petitioner - rejection of appeal filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. Application disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to 1st appellate order under GST Act, delay in preferring appeal, constitution of 2nd appellate tribunal.Judgment Summary:Challenge to 1st Appellate Order: The writ petition was filed to challenge the 1st appellate order dated 31.07.2023, which was passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST (Appeal), Sambalpur. The order rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, citing contravention of sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that they are not liable to pay the tax and penalty, and since the 2nd appellate tribunal had not yet been constituted, the writ petition was entertained.Delay in Preferring Appeal: The Standing Counsel argued that there was a delay in preferring the appeal, and requested the court not to condone the delay beyond four months. The appellate authority was not vested with discretion to condone the delay beyond one month after the lapse of three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. The petitioner was required to pay 20% balance disputed tax if they wanted to appeal before the 2nd appellate tribunal.Constitution of 2nd Appellate Tribunal: As an interim measure, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within fifteen days, the rest of the demand was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition since the 2nd appellate tribunal had not yet been constituted. The interim application was disposed of, and the matter was listed along with another case for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
