Court upholds tax payment orders in writ petitions, citing Supreme Court principles.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the orders directing payment of disputed tax in instalments were not arbitrary. It emphasized following Supreme Court principles on interim orders in revenue matters and exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cautiously. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of discretionary power by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Validity of non-speaking orders.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions on interim orders in revenue matters.
4. The court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exercise of Discretionary Power by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:
The petitioners argued that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, although vested with discretionary power to grant stay, failed to exercise this power judiciously. They contended that the non-speaking orders directing them to pay the disputed tax in instalments were arbitrary and lacked judicial discretion.

2. Validity of Non-Speaking Orders:
The petitioners sought to quash the non-speaking orders, arguing that the absence of reasoning indicated an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The court noted that judicial pronouncements support the need for judicious exercise of discretionary power. However, it emphasized that mere inconvenience to the assessee does not warrant interference by the court under Article 226.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions on Interim Orders in Revenue Matters:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR 1985 SC 330), which emphasized that interim orders should not be granted merely because a prima facie case is shown. The principles outlined by the Supreme Court in this case are of universal application to revenue matters where statutory remedies are available. The court highlighted that interim orders should be made with prudence, discretion, and circumspection, considering factors like balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest.

4. The Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court deliberated on whether it should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with interlocutory orders in revenue matters. It concluded that it should not, especially when the vires of the statute are not in question, nor are private or public wrongs so inextricably mixed up as to cause public injury. The court stressed that it should not encumber its files with proceedings that do not involve the infringement of fundamental rights or imminent public interest danger.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, stating that the orders directing payment of the disputed tax in instalments were not arbitrary or invalid merely because they were non-speaking. It emphasized that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding interim orders in revenue matters must be followed, and the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 with caution and prudence. The court found no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's orders.

---