Judicial exercise of appellate discretion in tax appeals can justify writ intervention despite an alternative remedy.

Where a statute confers discretion to stay tax payment and entertain an appeal despite non-payment, that discretion must be exercised judicially on the grounds and surrounding circumstances placed before the appellate authority. A bare demand notice or summary rejection, without a speaking order showing consideration of the request for stay, amounts to non-exercise of the statutory power. The availability of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the complaint is a jurisdictional failure in the exercise of discretion. In such circumstances, the impugned rejection cannot stand and the appeals must be reconsidered from the stage of the payment notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority failed to exercise the discretion conferred by Section 19(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in considering stay of payment and entertaining the appeals. (ii) Whether the existence of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal barred recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority failed to exercise the discretion conferred by Section 19(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in considering stay of payment and entertaining the appeals.

Analysis: The statutory power to stay payment and entertain an appeal despite absence of proof of tax payment was not an unfettered power. It had to be exercised judicially, after considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the surrounding circumstances. The record showed no speaking order and no indication that the authority applied its mind to the request for stay or the materials placed before it. A mere demand notice calling for payment could not substitute for a reasoned consideration of the request.

Conclusion: The appellate authority failed to exercise the discretion vested in it and acted in breach of the duty attached to that discretion.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal barred recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The availability of another remedy did not preclude interference where the authority had abdicated its statutory duty and the appeal had been rejected without proper consideration. The alternative remedy was not treated as an adequate bar in the circumstances, particularly because the complaint was directed against a jurisdictional failure in the exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction was maintainable despite the alternative appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of summary rejection could not stand, and the appeals were required to be reconsidered in accordance with law from the stage before the notice demanding payment or proof of payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers discretion to stay tax payment and entertain an appeal, that discretion must be exercised judicially on the relevant facts and circumstances; failure to consider the request amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction and can be corrected in writ proceedings notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---