Case Title: M/s. B.K. Trading Co. v. Commissioner of CT and GST & Others
Court: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Petition Number: W.P.(C) No. 4944 of 2025
Category of Dispute: Stay on demand pending appeal before non-functional Tribunal
Date of Judgement: 20 February 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 (Appeal to Appellate Tribunal); Section 107 (Appeal to Appellate Authority)
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner, M/s. B.K. Trading Co., challenged the order dated 18 November 2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner intended to appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, which, however, had not yet been constituted. The petitioner relied on earlier directions of the Orissa High Court in M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 42015 of 2023, order dated 16 February 2024), where similar interim reliefs were provided pending constitution of the Tribunal.
Under those directions, an assessee had to deposit 10% of the disputed tax while filing the appeal and an additional 20% of the balance disputed tax to secure stay of the impugned demand. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a Notification dated 16 August 2024 reducing the requirement of additional deposit to 10%, and the State Government of Odisha also issued a corresponding notification on 29 October 2024.
Questions (Para 1–3)
Whether the petitioner could be granted stay of the disputed tax demand by depositing only 10% of the remaining disputed tax, in light of the subsequent Central and State notifications reducing the pre-deposit requirement.
Observations (Para 3–5)
The Court observed that the earlier Maa Tarini Traders decision governed situations where the Tribunal was not yet functional, allowing writ petitions to be entertained and interim protection to be granted with partial deposits. However, since the State had now aligned its position with the Central notification dated 16 August 2024, the petitioner’s contention to reduce the additional deposit from 20% to 10% was legally sustainable.
The State’s counsel did not oppose the submission, acknowledging that the State had indeed issued the corresponding notification.
Judgement (Para 5–6)
The Division Bench accepted the petitioner’s plea and directed that the petitioner may deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount for the impugned appellate order to remain stayed. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with modification to the earlier directions of Maa Tarini Traders.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Court | Citation/No. | Key Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha & Others | Orissa High Court | W.P.(C) No. 42015 of 2023 | Assessees could obtain stay on demand pending Tribunal constitution upon deposit of 10% of disputed tax and additional 20% of remaining disputed tax. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment provides a clear relief to taxpayers awaiting Tribunal constitution. It harmonizes the State and Central approach by recognizing the reduced 10% additional pre-deposit for stay of demand. The decision ensures parity and prevents undue financial burden on assessees during the transitional phase when the GST Tribunal is non-functional.
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.”
