Relief Granted: 10% Deposit Sufficient for Stay of GST Demand Order

Case Title: M/s. Sai Mahaveer Suppliers and Constructions v. Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack and others
Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Petition No.: W.P.(C) No. 27696 of 2024
Category: Appeal Remedy / Refund Stay Relief
Date of Judgment: 10.01.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sahoo

📌 Facts of the Case

(Ref: Para 1–3)
The Petitioner, M/s. Sai Mahaveer Suppliers and Constructions, challenged the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner sought to prefer a further appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, but it had not yet been constituted.
To seek interim protection, the petitioner referred to the judgment dated 16.02.2024 in the case of M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha, which laid down that for a stay of the appellate order, 10% of the disputed tax must be deposited at the time of appeal and a further 20% of the remaining amount should be deposited.
However, the petitioner submitted that both the Central and State Governments had subsequently issued notifications (dated 16.08.2024 and 29.10.2024 respectively) reducing the required deposit for stay to only 10% of the remaining disputed tax.

❓Question(s) in Consideration

(Ref: Para 1, 3)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the reduced pre-deposit requirement of 10% (instead of 20%) of the remaining disputed tax amount, as per the latest Government notifications, for obtaining stay on the appellate order?

🔍 Observations of the Court

(Ref: Para 5)
The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that recent notifications by both Central and State Governments had revised the deposit requirement to 10% of the remaining disputed tax for obtaining stay. The Court noted that the earlier requirement of 20% (as per Maa Tarini Traders) stood modified in view of the new notifications.

🏛️ Judgement of the Court

(Ref: Para 6)
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to avail the benefit of reduced deposit (i.e., 10% of the remaining disputed tax) for the purpose of staying the effect of the First Appellate Authority’s order. Accordingly, the petitioner is required to deposit only the revised amount in order to obtain interim protection.

🧾 Between Fine Lines

• The High Court granted stay on the First Appellate Authority’s order with only 10% additional deposit.

• This relief was based on updated notifications by the Central and State Governments.

• The earlier requirement of 20% (per Maa Tarini Traders) was overruled by subsequent government policy.

• The Tribunal’s non-constitution didn’t deprive the petitioner of appeal remedy with protection.

• This case offers transitional relief for assessees during the Tribunal gap period.

📚 Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”