Conditional stay of tax recovery upheld where discretionary relief turned on different facts and no legal error was shown.

A conditional stay of recovery proceedings subject to deposit of 30% of the arrears was upheld because the learned single judge exercised discretion on the relevant facts and reasons recorded by the assessing authority for the additional demand. The appellate court found no error of fact or law warranting interference. A stay granted in another assessment year did not control the present matter, as the factual position was different and the earlier stay order was not before the court. The conditional stay therefore remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the learned single judge's order granting stay of recovery proceedings subject to deposit of 30 per cent of the arrears.

Analysis: The order under challenge was based on the reasons recorded by the assessing authority for raising the additional demand. The court held that interim relief granted in another assessment year did not compel the same result in the present case, since the factual position was different and the earlier stay order was not before the court. The learned single judge had exercised discretion on relevant facts, and no error of fact or law was shown to warrant interference.

Conclusion: The order granting conditional stay was upheld and no interference was called for.

---