M/S. Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore v. Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Orissa HC4 Mar 2025WP(C)/6069/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC writ petition disposed: GST/CT assessee Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore; pre-deposit for stay of First Appellate Authority order dated 17.02.2025 reduced to 10% of disputed tax pursuant to State notification dated 29.10.2024 matching Central notification dated 16.08.2024; disposal in terms of Division Bench order dated 16.02.2024 in batch led by WP(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha); GST Tribunal not yet constituted; deposit to be made accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as covered by the First Division Bench order dated 16th February, 2024, with modification that the deposit for the impugned first appellate order to remain stayed is 10% of (remaining) disputed tax, to be made accordingly. ¶¶27

M/S. Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore Vs Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the State notification dated 29th October, 2024 corresponding to the Central notification dated 16th August, 2024, the deposit required for the impugned First Appellate Authority order dated 17th February, 2025 to remain stayed should be reduced to 10%, disposing of the writ petition as covered by the First Division Bench order dated 16th February, 2024 with that modification.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted that the corresponding notification reduces the deposit requirement to 10% of disputed tax for the impugned first appellate order to remain stayed, and directed the deposit be made accordingly.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

On that basis the writ petition was disposed of, in terms of the order dated 16th February, 2024 as modified for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.6069 of 2025 (decided 04.03.2025; Arindam Sinha, ACJ and M.S. Sahoo, J.): Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore, aggrieved by an order dated 17th February, 2025 of the First Appellate Authority, wished to appeal to the Tribunal which had not yet been constituted. Assessees and the department had been complying with the First Division Bench order dated 16th February, 2024 in the batch led by WP(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others), which required deposit of 10% of disputed tax on filing the appeal and a further 20% of remaining disputed tax for the impugned order to be stayed. Following the Central revenue notification dated 16th August, 2024 reducing the latter deposit to 10%, State revenue correspondingly notified on 29th October, 2024. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission regarding the corresponding notification reducing the deposit requirement to 10% of disputed tax for the impugned first appellate order to remain stayed, directed the deposit be made accordingly, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6069 of 2025

¶3

Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mrs. Z.M. Wallace, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

AND

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

04.03.2025

Order No.

01.

1. Mrs. Wallace, learned advocate appears on behalf of

¶19

petitioner and submits, her client is aggrieved by order dated 17^th February, 2025 made by the First Appellate Authority. She wants to appeal therefrom to the Tribunal but it has not yet been constituted. In the circumstances assessees and the department were complying with directions made on order dated 16^th

¶20

February, 2024 by the First Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being WP(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa

¶21

Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others) .

¶22

Page 1 of 2

¶23

2. The directions included requiring the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax on filing the appeal and further 20% of remaining disputed tax, for the impugned order to be stayed.

¶24

3. She submits, her client is up against State revenue. There was notification dated 16^th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing latter deposit to 10%. Now, State revenue has correspondingly notified on 29^th October, 2024. In the circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of as covered by order dated 16th February, 2024 (supra) with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for impugned order to remain stayed.

¶25

4. Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue.

¶26

5. We accept submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. The deposit be made accordingly.

¶27

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Mar-2025 17:19:37

¶31

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶32

Sks

¶33

Page 2 of 2

M/S. Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore v. Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mahaveer Jewellers, Balasore v. Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Powermax Enterprises, Bbsr Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bbsr I Circle

M/S.Powermax Enterprises, Bbsr Vs Joint Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Bbsr

Dasaratha Ojha Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

M/S. Bhikari Charan Pradhan, Koraput Vs Joint Commissioner of Tax(Appeal), Ct and GST Territorial Range, Bolangir

Yogeswer Rao Pratapnani Vs Chief Commnr of Ct and Gst, Cuttack