Tribunal discretion on stay of tax recovery includes further deposit and security conditions, with limited writ interference.

The proviso to section 22(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 gives the Appellate Tribunal broad discretion to grant stay of recovery after one-half of the disputed tax has been deposited. That discretion may lawfully extend to an absolute stay, a conditional stay requiring further deposit, a requirement of security, or refusal of stay, depending on the facts. A conditional interim order directing payment of part of the balance and furnishing of security for the remainder was therefore within statutory power. Because the order was discretionary and interim in nature, interference under articles 226 and 227 was not warranted absent illegality or perversity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting stay of recovery of the remaining disputed tax only on conditions of further deposit and security under section 22(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; and whether such a conditional interim order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The proviso to section 22(5) permits the Tribunal, after the appellant has deposited one half of the disputed tax, to exercise discretion in granting stay in respect of the balance amount. That discretion is broad enough to include an absolute stay, a conditional stay requiring further deposit, a requirement of security, or even refusal of stay depending on the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal's direction that 50 per cent of the remaining amount be paid and security be furnished for the balance was therefore within the statutory discretion conferred by the provision. The wording of the order, even if capable of better drafting, did not render the exercise of power unlawful. In view of the discretionary and interim nature of the order, no ground was made out for interference under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The conditional stay order was valid and no interference was warranted; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, while a limited period was granted for compliance with the Tribunal's conditions and recovery was kept in abeyance for that period.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a provision conferring discretion to stay recovery of disputed tax after partial deposit, the Tribunal may lawfully impose further deposit and security conditions, and such a discretionary interim order will not ordinarily be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent illegality or perversity.

---