Writ interference over tax recovery stay refused where statutory appeal deposit conditions and financial incapacity were not shown.

A writ court should not interfere under Article 226 with refusal to stay tax recovery where the statutory appeal scheme conditions the appeal on payment of assessed tax and permits waiver only on proof of inability to pay. "Inability" is assessed by the assessee's financial capacity, and appellate discretion will be disturbed only if exercised illegally or perversely. On the admitted turnover figures, no sufficient financial incapacity was shown, and the authorities had already allowed instalmental deposit. The refusal to stay recovery was therefore upheld, and no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the appellate authority's and Tribunal's refusal to stay recovery of tax demand and insistence on payment in instalments under the statutory appeal scheme.

Analysis: The right of appeal under the State Act was subject to the statutory condition of payment of the assessed tax, with a limited discretion to dispense with deposit only on proof of inability to pay. The Court applied the settled principle that "inability" in the proviso refers to the assessee's paying capacity and financial position, and that interference with the appellate authority's discretion is unwarranted unless that discretion is shown to have been exercised illegally or perversely. On the admitted turnover figures, the petitioner's financial position was not shown to be such as to justify interference. The Court also noted that the authorities had already granted substantial indulgence by permitting instalmental deposit.

Conclusion: The refusal to stay recovery was upheld and no interference was warranted under Article 226.

---