Statutory discretion must be exercised fairly and on relevant grounds; mere appeal filing does not create an automatic stay.

Section 45 confers on the Income-tax Officer a statutory discretion to treat an assessee as not in default pending appeal, but that discretion is coupled with a duty to consider applications judicially on relevant, fair and non-arbitrary grounds. Mandamus may issue where the authority refuses to consider the request or effectively fails to exercise discretion, yet mere filing of an appeal does not create an automatic stay and the court will not replace a valid merits-based decision. On the facts discussed, the assessee had not shown sufficient justification, security, or a substantial basis for interim protection, so no writ relief was warranted against recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer's discretion to treat an assessee as not being in default pending appeal is an absolute discretion or a discretion coupled with a duty, and whether the facts justified issuance of a writ of mandamus directing forbearance from recovery.

Analysis: The proviso to section 45 empowers the Income-tax Officer, pending an appeal under section 30, to treat the assessee as not being in default. That power is not uncontrolled merely because it is expressed in discretionary terms. A statutory discretion conferred for public purposes must be exercised on relevant considerations, honestly, fairly, and without caprice, arbitrariness, or extraneous factors. Where the authority refuses to consider an application, or where the refusal amounts in law to no exercise of discretion, mandamus may lie. But the mere filing of an appeal does not create an automatic stay, and the Court will not substitute its own view for a discretion validly exercised on the merits. On the facts, the assessee had not paid substantial amounts for years, had not shown that the appeal raised substantial questions, and had offered no security or sufficient justification for interim protection.

Conclusion: The discretion under section 45 is coupled with a duty to consider and decide applications judicially, but no mandamus was warranted on the facts of this case.

Final Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish that the Income-tax Officer acted arbitrarily or unlawfully, so the challenge to the recovery proceedings could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion conferred on a public authority for the benefit of affected persons must be exercised on relevant considerations and may be enforced by mandamus if refused or exercised arbitrarily, but a court will not interfere with a discretion honestly and fairly exercised on the merits.

---