<?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 1078 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765014</link>
    <description>Pending constitution of the Tribunal, the stay condition on the first appellate order was aligned with the reduced statutory pre-deposit requirement. The court accepted that the revised condition applied to the State revenue as well, so the assessee was not required to make any higher deposit for the stay to continue. The operative deposit condition was fixed at 10% of the remaining disputed tax, preserving the stay on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:50:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1078 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765014</link>
      <description>Pending constitution of the Tribunal, the stay condition on the first appellate order was aligned with the reduced statutory pre-deposit requirement. The court accepted that the revised condition applied to the State revenue as well, so the assessee was not required to make any higher deposit for the stay to continue. The operative deposit condition was fixed at 10% of the remaining disputed tax, preserving the stay on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>