Case Title: Pramod Kumar Prusty v. Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha
Court: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Petition No.: WP(C) No. 3678 of 2025
Category of Dispute: Appeal – Pre-deposit requirement for stay of demand
Date of Judgment: 11 February 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 (Appeals to Appellate Tribunal); Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Prusty, challenged the order dated 29 October 2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority under GST. The petitioner intended to file a further appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which had not yet been constituted. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the Court in M/s Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha [WP(C) No. 42015/2023, decided on 16 February 2024] had laid down directions regarding interim protection to appellants pending Tribunal formation, requiring payment of 10% of disputed tax at filing and an additional 20% for stay of recovery.
The petitioner argued that pursuant to a Central Government notification dated 16 August 2024, the requirement of further 20% deposit had been reduced to 10%. The State Government of Odisha issued a corresponding notification dated 29 October 2024, aligning with this revision. Hence, the petitioner sought relief consistent with the updated notification and the precedent established in Maa Tarini Traders.
Questions (Para 1–3)
The core issue was whether, in light of the Central and State notifications reducing the pre-deposit percentage, the petitioner could be granted stay of the disputed demand upon depositing only 10% of the remaining disputed tax instead of 20%.
Observations (Para 4–5)
The Bench, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha (Acting Chief Justice) and Justice M.S. Sahoo, took note of the petitioner’s submissions and the subsequent State notification mirroring the Central notification. The Court accepted that the benefit of the reduced pre-deposit requirement should be extended to the petitioner, ensuring parity and uniformity in application across jurisdictions.
The Court recognized that since the Tribunal was not yet functional, such petitions were being disposed of following the Maa Tarini Traders precedent, to safeguard the assessee’s appellate rights.
Judgment (Para 5–6)
The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention and directed that the stay on the impugned first appellate order shall continue upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the remaining disputed tax. The writ petition was thus disposed of in terms of the modified relief granted in Maa Tarini Traders, harmonized with the latest Central and State notifications.
Table of Cases Referred
| S. No. | Case Title | Citation / WP No. | Court & Date | Verdict Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/s Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha & Others | WP(C) No. 42015 of 2023 | Orissa HC, 16.02.2024 | Court directed that appeals pending before unconstituted Tribunal be protected by allowing stay of demand on 10% + 20% deposit of disputed tax. Present case modified this to 10% + 10% as per new notification. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reaffirms that when statutory appellate mechanisms like the GST Appellate Tribunal are yet to be operational, High Courts can intervene to balance taxpayer rights with revenue protection. Importantly, the ruling aligns the State’s deposit conditions with the Central notification, ensuring uniform treatment and reducing taxpayers’ financial burden during appeal proceedings.
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.”
