Statutory bar on stay of tax recovery limits revision powers to instalment relief and payment directions

Where a statute expressly bars stay of recovery of tax and penalty during revision, the High Court's residual power to issue directions as to payment cannot be read as a power to suspend enforcement. The later and specific embargo in section 22(6-A) prevails over the broader proviso to section 22(6), which is confined to regulating the manner of payment, including instalments or similar limited directions. Applying harmonious and purposive construction, the proviso must operate subject to the statutory prohibition on stay. The result is that no stay of recovery can be granted pending revision, although instalment relief may still be allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court has power, pending revision under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to stay recovery of disputed tax and penalty, or whether its power is confined to permitting instalments and other limited directions regarding payment.

Analysis: Sub-section (6) requires tax to be paid notwithstanding the revision, but its proviso permits instalments and such other directions regarding payment as the High Court thinks fit. Sub-section (6-A), introduced later, expressly states that payment of tax and penalty due under the Tribunal's order shall not be stayed pending revision. Reading both provisions together, the legislative scheme shows an express restriction on stay, while preserving only limited discretion to regulate manner of payment. The broader construction earlier placed on the proviso to section 22(6) cannot override the specific embargo enacted in section 22(6-A). The principles of harmonious construction, contextual interpretation, purposive interpretation, and legislative intent require the proviso to be read subject to the later sub-section.

Conclusion: The High Court has no power to grant stay of recovery of tax or penalty pending revision under section 22(1). It may, however, permit payment by instalments or issue other limited directions that do not amount to stay.

Final Conclusion: The reference is answered in favour of Revenue, and the earlier view recognising power to grant stay is not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly bars stay of recovery pending revision, a residuary proviso permitting other directions as to payment cannot be construed to include a power to stay recovery.

---