Stay of tax recovery is not part of the right of appeal, and amended limits can govern pending stay applications.

The right to appeal and the power to stay recovery are distinct, and a statutory curtailment of stay does not affect the substantive appellate remedy. Earlier recognition of stay as incidental to appellate jurisdiction does not make it an inherent part of the right of appeal, so limiting stay power does not render the appeal illusory. An amended provision restricting the revisional authority's power to grant stay may therefore govern a pending stay application, because no vested right exists to insist on the earlier stay regime. The article's stated ratio is that stay of recovery is not an integral component of the right of appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the right to obtain stay of recovery of tax, fee, or penalty is an integral part of the statutory right of appeal; (ii) whether the amended provision curtailing the revisional authority's power to grant stay applied to the pending stay application.

Issue (i): Whether the right to obtain stay of recovery of tax, fee, or penalty is an integral part of the statutory right of appeal.

Analysis: The right of appeal and the power to grant stay are distinct. An appellate remedy may be effective without an accompanying power to suspend recovery, and the earlier recognition of stay power as incidental or ancillary to appellate jurisdiction does not convert it into an inherent component of the right of appeal. A curtailment of stay power does not, by itself, take away the right of appeal or render it illusory.

Conclusion: The right to stay recovery is not an integral part of the right of appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended provision curtailing the revisional authority's power to grant stay applied to the pending stay application.

Analysis: The amendment reduced the revisional authority's power to stay recovery and introduced conditions for entertainment of stay applications. Since the stay power is not part of the vested right of appeal, the pending application could be regulated by the amended provision. The earlier appeal did not confer immunity from the later statutory restriction on stay.

Conclusion: The amended provision applied, and the stay application was governed by the curtailed power under the amendment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the amended stay regime failed, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory curtailment of the power to grant stay of recovery does not affect the substantive right of appeal, because the power of stay is not an inherent or integral part of that right.

---