Writ of mandamus for stay of tax recovery failed where no prior demand or refusal before the competent authority was shown.

A writ of mandamus to stay recovery of tax and interest under the Income-tax Act was found unavailable where the petitioner had not first sought interim relief from the competent authority, namely the Commissioner of Income-tax, and no refusal had been shown. The Court treated the absence of a demand and refusal as fatal to the writ basis, since interlocutory relief remained pending before the Commissioner. On that footing, the petition lacked the necessary cause of action and was rejected as misconceived.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking stay of recovery proceedings could be entertained when no demand for stay had been made before the competent authority and no refusal had been shown.

Analysis: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain recovery of tax and interest assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, pending disposal of an application for waiver of interest before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court held that the competent authority to consider a stay request was the Commissioner, and that no demand for such interim relief, much less any refusal, had been made before that authority. In the absence of a demand and refusal, the essential foundation for mandamus was lacking, and the Court would not interpose itself to deal with interlocutory relief while the substantive application remained pending before the Commissioner.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for want of cause of action and was rejected as misconceived.

---