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>GST Tax Dispute Resolved: Petitioner Ordered to Deposit Full Tax Demand with Partial Stay of Remaining Amount</h1> <h3>Sudhir Kumar Muduli Versus Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha & Others</h3> Orissa HC ruled on a GST tax dispute, directing the petitioner to deposit the entire tax demand within 15 days while staying the remaining demand. The ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - non-constitution of Second Appellate Tribunal - 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. Summary of the Judgment:The Orissa High Court, presided over by Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman, addressed a writ petition due to the absence of a constituted Second Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the first appellate order dated 27.06.2023, issued by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST (Appeal), North Zone, Balasore, which rejected the appeal under sub-Section (1) of Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The rejection was based on non-compliance with sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act.The petitioner's counsel, Mr. A.K. Biswal, argued that the petitioner is not liable for the tax and penalty and has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax. Due to the lack of a second appellate forum, the petitioner seeks relief from the High Court.The respondent's counsel, Mr. S. Dash, contended that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned beyond four months, as the appellate authority lacks discretion to extend the delay beyond one month after three months from the order's communication. He also stated that the petitioner must pay 20% of the disputed tax to appeal to the second appellate tribunal once constituted.The court issued notice to the opposite parties and accepted notice on behalf of the department. It ordered that, as an interim measure, the petitioner must deposit the entire tax demand within fifteen days, with the remaining demand stayed during the writ petition's pendency. The matter is to be listed alongside W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 on the scheduled date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
