Writ interference with stay refusal is limited where no arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or extraneous influence is shown.

Refusal to stay recovery of an assessed tax demand will not attract writ interference unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, passed without application of mind, or influenced by extraneous considerations. The petitioner's reliance on an earlier Tribunal view and financial hardship did not, by itself, establish a prima facie case for intervention. On the materials before it, the Court found no basis to disturb the discretionary stay-refusal order, and the challenge was rejected, leaving recovery undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to stay recovery of the assessed tax demand called for interference in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of prima facie case, financial stringency, arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or extraneous considerations.

Analysis: The petition challenged the Tribunal's order declining to stay recovery of the demand arising from an addition to taxable income. The Court noted the petitioner's reliance on an earlier Tribunal view and its plea of financial difficulty, but found no material to show that the impugned order was arbitrary, suffered from non-application of mind, or was influenced by extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out and the writ petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of stay failed, leaving the recovery order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary order refusing stay will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or extraneous considerations.

---