The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Triveni Engineers v. Assessing Authority, CT and GST Circle, Barbil & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20880/2025 dated August 4, 2025] held that dismissal of the statutory appeal for failure to deposit 20 percent of the disputed tax, as mandated under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, was valid.
Facts:
M/s. Triveni Engineers (“the Petitioner”) filed a statutory appeal before the Additional Commissioner, CT & GST, against an order of assessment. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the Petitioner failed to deposit 20 percent of the disputed tax amount, which is a statutory precondition under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act for maintaining such an appeal.
The Petitioner’s revision application was also dismissed. The Orissa High Court, interpreting Section 16(4), held that the law mandates the deposit of “20 percent of the tax or interest or both in dispute” before an appeal can be entertained, and rejected the Petitioner’s plea to allow a 10 percent deposit instead. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
Issue:
Whether dismissal of appeal for failure to deposit the full 20% of disputed tax under Section 16(4) was valid?
Held:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20880/2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the statutory mandate under Section 16(4) is clear, i.e. deposit of 20% of the tax or interest or both in dispute is a condition precedent for the appellate authority to entertain an appeal.
- Noted that, the High Court found no legal basis to reduce this pre-deposit requirement to 10 percent as sought by the Petitioner.
- Held that, there was no error or illegality in the appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of the requisite 20% deposit.
- Held that, the Petitioner is at liberty to explore other alternative legal remedies that may be available in law. Accordingly, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and disposed of pending applications.
Our Comments:
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory pre-deposit requirements are mandatory and non-negotiable unless the statute itself provides flexibility. In GST and allied tax laws, appellate authorities often lack discretion to waive or reduce the prescribed pre-deposit
The Delhi High Court ruling in Impressive Data Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals-I)[W.P.(C) 4662/2025 & CM APPL. 21564/2025] held that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 & 112 of the CGST Act is absolute and not subject to judicial waiver, even on grounds of financial hardship or pending receivables from government entities.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Diamond Entertainment Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun & Anr.[Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27771/2019] the Delhi High Court reiterated that an appeal is maintainable only if the statutory 10% of the disputed tax is deposited, in addition to any admitted dues. While the Court allowed the assessee to approach the appellate authority to seek credit for amounts already lying with the government towards the pre-deposit, the core principle remains—no statutory deposit, no appeal. This aligns with other recent strict interpretations of S.107(6) and serves as a cautionary note for litigants seeking to bypass the pre-deposit mandate.
Relevant Provision:
Section 16(4), Odisha Entry Tax Act 1999
16. Appeals-
“(4) No appeal against an order of assessment shall be entertained by the appellate authority, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax in full and twenty per centum of the tax or interest or both, in dispute.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
