Recorded reasons are mandatory for refusing tax stay; an unreasoned partial rejection was quashed, while assessment review was left to appeal.

An order partly refusing stay of recovery of tax was invalid because the proviso to section 11(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 required recorded reasons for rejecting the stay request, and the cyclostyled order gave none for declining stay of the balance demand. The partial refusal was therefore quashed and the stay application was remitted for fresh decision. On the assessment challenge, the writ court declined to examine the merits because an appeal against the assessment order was already pending, and the assessee was left to pursue that alternate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order partly refusing stay of recovery of tax was invalid for want of recorded reasons under the proviso to section 11(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) whether the assessment order should be examined in writ jurisdiction despite the availability and pendency of an appeal.

Issue (i): whether the order partly refusing stay of recovery of tax was invalid for want of recorded reasons under the proviso to section 11(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The proviso required the authority to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to record reasons for rejecting the stay application. The impugned order was passed in a cyclostyled form and merely recorded that part of the demand would be stayed. It contained no reasons for declining stay of the balance amount. The mandate to record reasons was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The partial refusal of stay was invalid and the order was liable to be set aside, with the stay application to be decided afresh.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment order should be examined in writ jurisdiction despite the availability and pendency of an appeal.

Analysis: An appeal against the assessment order had already been filed and was pending before the appellate authority. In the presence of an effective alternate remedy, the writ court declined to enter into the merits of the assessment order and left the assessee free to pursue the appeal.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent that the non-speaking stay order was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision; the assessment challenge was left to the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires reasons to be recorded for rejection of a stay application, a cyclostyled or unreasoned order refusing full stay cannot stand and must be set aside for fresh consideration.

---