Statutory discretion on tax stay must consider furnished security before refusal; non-consideration makes the order unsustainable.

A statutory discretion under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 must be exercised on relevant facts and in accordance with law, not arbitrarily. Where sufficient security is furnished, the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider that security before deciding whether to issue directions for payment of tax or refuse stay. An order that gives no indication of such consideration, or of the grounds for refusal, shows non-exercise of the conferred power and cannot be sustained; the matter requires fresh disposal after proper consideration of the security offered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner was bound to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, after considering the security furnished, and whether refusal to grant stay without such consideration was sustainable.

Analysis: The proviso empowered the Deputy Commissioner to issue directions regarding payment of tax if sufficient security was furnished, but the power was not arbitrary. A statutory discretion entrusted to a taxing authority must be exercised according to law and reason, with attention to the relevant facts and the security offered. The impugned order did not disclose any consideration of the security furnished or the grounds on which stay was refused, indicating that the authority declined to exercise the power conferred by the proviso.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant stay could not stand and the matter required fresh disposal by the Deputy Commissioner.

---