Discretionary writ interference is limited where no arbitrariness or perversity is shown in tax recovery challenges.

Appellate interference with a single judge's refusal to grant writ relief against a sales tax assessment and recovery steps is justified only where the writ discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or in a clearly wrong manner. A mere possibility of a different view on the same facts does not warrant reversal. The existence of a pending statutory appeal and stay application also reduced immediate prejudice, as the assessee could pursue the remedy under the sales tax statute. The appellate court therefore declined to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition and left the refusal of relief undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the single judge's refusal to grant relief in writ proceedings challenging a sales tax assessment and recovery steps.

Analysis: Interference in appeal against an order passed in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction is warranted only when the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or in a clearly wrong manner. A mere possibility of a different view on the same facts does not justify appellate interference. The existence of a pending appeal and stay application before the statutory appellate authority also reduced any immediate prejudice to the appellant, who could pursue the remedy available under the sales tax statute.

Conclusion: The appellate court declined to interfere with the single judge's dismissal of the writ petition and upheld the refusal of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with an order passed in discretionary writ jurisdiction is justified only when the discretion is shown to be clearly wrong, arbitrary, or perverse, and not merely because another view is possible.

---