Interim stay of sales tax recovery refused where no jurisdictional error or patent illegality was shown in the Tribunal's discretion.

Interim stay of recovery of a long-standing sales tax demand was refused because the assessee showed no clear jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or other basis for interference with the Tribunal's discretion. The demand had arisen from reassessment proceedings under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and the revision was already pending before the Tribunal, which had declined stay for the relevant assessment years. The Court held that substantial tax dues alone did not justify interim protection where the dues were not shown to be disproportionate to the assessee's business or financial standing. It reiterated that stays against recovery of indirect taxes should be granted sparingly in fiscal matters.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should grant an interim stay of recovery of long-standing sales tax demand while the assessee's revision was pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The demand arose from reassessment proceedings under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The revision was already pending before the Tribunal, which had examined the request for stay and declined relief for the assessment years in question. The Court held that the tax dues, though substantial, were not shown to be so disproportionate to the assessee's business or financial standing as to justify interference. It further found no inherent lack of jurisdiction or patent error in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion. The Court relied on the settled approach that interim orders staying recovery of indirect taxes should be granted sparingly in fiscal litigation, particularly where public revenue is held up for long periods.

Conclusion: The prayer for stay was rejected, and no interim protection against recovery was granted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed at the threshold, leaving the tax recovery to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, especially concerning indirect taxes, High Courts should ordinarily refrain from granting interim orders that stall recovery unless a clear jurisdictional or legal error is shown.

---