Writ jurisdiction in tax recovery remains available, but courts must exercise it sparingly and respect the statutory no-stay scheme.

A statutory direction that tax due under a Tribunal's order shall not be stayed does not, by itself, bar the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 to grant stay of tax recovery. The SC held that the writ power remains available, but the legislative intention behind the provision must be given due weight, so interference should be granted only in exceptional cases and not as a routine matter. The Court therefore affirmed a restrained approach in tax recovery matters while preserving constitutional writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether sub-section (7) of section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant stay of tax recovery; and whether the High Court should nevertheless keep the legislative intention behind that provision in mind while granting relief.

Analysis: The statutory language indicated that payment of tax due under the Tribunal's order was not to be stayed pending further proceedings, but the Court held that such a statutory bar could not exclude the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the High Court must respect the legislative intention reflected in the provision and should interfere only in exceptional cases, not as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The statutory provision did not oust writ jurisdiction, though it required restrained exercise of that power in tax matters.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition was not entertained, and the High Court was cautioned to follow the indicated approach in future matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision directing that tax payment shall not be stayed does not by itself bar the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226, but that jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and in deference to the legislative scheme.

---