Writ interference with refusal of tax-collection stay is unavailable absent manifest error or irreversible prejudice.

Writ interference against an interlocutory order refusing stay of disputed tax collection was declined because the authority had considered the material, found no prima facie case for applying the relevant sales tax provision, and gave a reasoned determination. The order was treated as interlocutory and not as one creating an irreversible situation or taking away any valuable right. In the absence of manifest error or irreversible prejudice, no basis existed for intervention under Article 226. The challenge to the refusal of stay therefore failed and the stay order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction against an interlocutory order rejecting stay of collection of disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal, and whether any manifest error or irreversible prejudice was shown.

Analysis: The impugned order dealt with an interlocutory request for stay pending the main appeal. The authority had considered the grounds urged and the material on record, and had found that a prima facie case for applying section 5AA of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was not made out. The order was also found to be a reasoned interlocutory determination that did not create any irreversible situation or deprive the petitioner of any valuable right. In such circumstances, no manifest error was shown to justify interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the interlocutory order failed.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant stay of tax collection was left undisturbed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interlocutory orders rejecting stay will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless a manifest error or irreversible prejudice is shown.

---