<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (1) TMI 1019 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764955</link>
    <description>Where a Tribunal is not yet constituted, a writ petitioner challenging a first appellate order may seek interim stay under the revised pre-deposit regime. The text states that the applicable requirement was reduced to 10% of the disputed tax under the relevant notification, and that the corresponding State notification was also issued. On that basis, the impugned first appellate order was to remain stayed on deposit of 10% of the remaining disputed tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1019 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764955</link>
      <description>Where a Tribunal is not yet constituted, a writ petitioner challenging a first appellate order may seek interim stay under the revised pre-deposit regime. The text states that the applicable requirement was reduced to 10% of the disputed tax under the relevant notification, and that the corresponding State notification was also issued. On that basis, the impugned first appellate order was to remain stayed on deposit of 10% of the remaining disputed tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>