Statutory bar on stay of disputed tax recovery limits writ relief; instalment payment remained the only available interim remedy.

Where the taxing statute expressly barred stay of recovery of disputed sales tax during revision proceedings, the High Court held that writ jurisdiction under article 226 could not be used to bypass that prohibition. The Court found that collection was not without authority of law, no grave or undue hardship was shown, and the only relief specifically available was instalment payment under the statute. Interim stay of recovery was therefore refused, and the petitioner was left to pursue instalment relief in the revision proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, stay collection of disputed sales tax during pendency of the tax revision case despite the statutory embargo against such stay, and whether any other interim relief was warranted.

Analysis: The disputed demand arose from a revision of assessment under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the tax revision case challenging the Tribunal's order was still pending. The Court noted that section 22(6A) of the Act placed a statutory restriction on staying collection of disputed tax during the pendency of revision proceedings, and that invoking article 226 could not be used to obtain relief which the statute itself prohibited. The Court also observed that the collection of tax was not without authority of law and that no grave or undue hardship was made out. The only limited relief contemplated by the statute was the power to permit payment in instalments under section 22(6).

Conclusion: The Court held that it could not grant stay of tax recovery in writ jurisdiction and declined interim relief; the petitioner was left to seek instalments in the revision proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar against staying recovery of disputed tax prevailed, and the writ court refused to interfere with collection proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxing statute expressly bars stay of recovery pending revision, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226 cannot be used to bypass that prohibition, save for such limited relief as the statute specifically permits.

---