Case Title: M/s. Gobinda Chandra Behera v. Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack & Others
Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Petition No.: WP(C) No.171 of 2025
Category: Appeal & Stay – Deposit Requirement under Section 112 of the OGST Act (Tribunal not constituted)
Date of Judgment: 07 January 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 112(8) of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 (pre-deposit for appeal before Tribunal), read with Notification dated 29 October 2024 issued by State Government.
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner, M/s. Gobinda Chandra Behera, challenged the order dated 28 November 2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority. Since the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the petitioner sought interim protection similar to earlier directions issued by the Division Bench in Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha (WP(C) No. 42015 of 2023, order dated 16 February 2024). Under that order, assessees were required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax at the time of appeal and an additional 20% of the remaining disputed tax for the impugned order to remain stayed.
However, the petitioner contended that the Central Government’s notification dated 16 August 2024—and the State’s corresponding notification dated 29 October 2024—had reduced the additional deposit from 20% to 10%, warranting modification of the stay conditions accordingly.
Questions Before the Court (Para 2–3)
Whether the petitioner, in light of the revised State notification, was entitled to the benefit of reduced pre-deposit (10% instead of 20%) for stay of the impugned order pending constitution of the Tribunal.
Observations (Para 4–5)
The Court noted that the earlier decision in Maa Tarini Traders governed such interim arrangements when the Tribunal was not functional. The petitioner correctly pointed out the subsequent notification aligning the State’s pre-deposit requirement with that of the Centre. Since the change reflected a policy decision applicable uniformly to taxpayers, there was no reason to deny its benefit.
Judgment (Para 5–6)
The Division Bench (Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo) accepted the petitioner’s contention and directed that only 10% of the disputed tax be deposited for stay of the appellate order. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, recognizing the reduced pre-deposit requirement and extending stay upon compliance.
Summary of Referred Case
| Case | Court | Principle | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha (WP(C) No. 42015 of 2023) | Orissa HC | When the GST Tribunal is not constituted, appeals may be entertained by the High Court subject to deposit of 10% of disputed tax + 20% of balance for stay. | Interim mechanism permitted until Tribunal becomes operational. |
Between Fine Lines
This order reinforces parity between Central and State GST regimes in pre-deposit requirements. For taxpayers in Odisha awaiting Tribunal constitution, it ensures immediate relief—only 10% of the disputed tax needs to be deposited for a stay. It underscores that procedural fairness and policy consistency govern GST appellate practice, especially during administrative transitions.
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.”
