Interim stay against municipal tax recovery should not issue lightly when statutory remedies exist and revenue administration is at risk.

Interim restraint on municipal tax recovery should not be granted lightly where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available and public revenue administration may be impeded. The Court stressed that revenue matters call for circumspection in interlocutory relief, and that bypassing statutory remedies without justification can amount to abuse of process. It noted that the assessee had withdrawn earlier writ proceedings and then filed a civil suit on the same cause of action, which weighed against continued protection. The existence of a prima facie case alone was held insufficient to sustain a stay that would disrupt municipal functioning. The interim stay orders were therefore set aside and recovery was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim orders staying recovery of municipal tax could be sustained where the assessee had bypassed the statutory appellate remedy and approached the civil court after failed writ proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that revenue matters require circumspection in granting interlocutory relief, and that statutory remedies should not be bypassed without justification. It noted that the assessee had earlier sought similar relief in writ proceedings, withdrawn that petition after interim relief was not granted, and then instituted a suit on the same cause of action. The Court treated this as an abuse of process. It further relied on the settled principle that interim restraint on tax recovery can paralyse municipal administration, and reiterated that the existence of a prima facie case alone is not enough to justify such relief where statutory remedies are available. The Court also referred to the settled position that the relevant municipal deposit condition could not be waived by the appellate court, though interim accommodation had to be exercised judicially with regard to revenue interests.

Conclusion: The interim stay orders could not be sustained and were set aside; recovery of the tax was permitted to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that courts should not lightly interfere with tax recovery through interim orders, particularly where statutory appellate remedies exist and municipal revenue would be adversely affected.

Ratio Decidendi: Interlocutory restraint on tax recovery should not be granted merely on a prima facie case where an effective statutory remedy exists and the relief would unjustifiably impede public revenue administration.

---