<?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 (3) TMI 103 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766718</link>
    <description>The pre-deposit condition for keeping the first appellate order stayed was aligned with later revenue notifications that reduced the deposit threshold. The petitioner sought application of the revised requirement in the State revenue context, and the court accepted that the stay condition should match the updated framework. Deposit was therefore directed at 10% of the remaining disputed tax, and the modified stay-related relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 103 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766718</link>
      <description>The pre-deposit condition for keeping the first appellate order stayed was aligned with later revenue notifications that reduced the deposit threshold. The petitioner sought application of the revised requirement in the State revenue context, and the court accepted that the stay condition should match the updated framework. Deposit was therefore directed at 10% of the remaining disputed tax, and the modified stay-related relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>