Mandamus not available to block tax recovery while an instalment request remains pending under discretionary sales tax rules.

A writ of mandamus was held not to lie to restrain recovery proceedings or compel consideration of an instalment request under Rule 20A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, because the request was only for a discretionary concession and not an enforceable right. The pendency of an instalment application or appeal did not by itself operate as a stay of recovery, and the petitioner could not use that proceeding to challenge the underlying tax liability. The earlier order relied on was treated as fact-specific and not binding precedent. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable for the relief sought, and restraint on recovery was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to restrain recovery proceedings and compel consideration of an instalment application under Rule 20A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957.

Analysis: The relief sought was based on an application for instalments, which was treated as a request for a concession within the discretion of the Government and not as an enforceable right. The Court held that mandamus does not lie to secure such a concession or to prevent recovery merely because an application for instalments is pending. It further held that the pendency of an appeal or application does not by itself stay recovery, and the petitioner could not challenge the tax liability in this proceeding when the request was only for instalment . The earlier order relied upon was treated as case-specific and not as a binding precedent.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the relief sought and the request to restrain recovery was declined.

---