Automatic stay does not arise from an appeal period; recovery may proceed absent a specific stay order.

The mere filing of an appeal, or the period still available for filing one, does not create an automatic stay of an enforceable demand. In the absence of a specific stay order, the revenue may proceed with recovery, and the pendency of appellate limitation does not by itself bar execution of the assessed demand. The court therefore upheld recovery and rejected the contention that the assessee was entitled to protection during the appeal period.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of the assessed demand could be stayed merely because the assessee still had time to file an appeal.

Analysis: The Court held that filing, or the time available for filing, an appeal does not create any deemed stay of an order that has already become enforceable. In the absence of a specific stay order, the revenue is entitled to proceed with recovery, and the pendency of the appellate limitation period by itself does not bar execution of the demand.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to a stay of recovery during the appeal period, and the recovery action was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the demand could be enforced notwithstanding the unexpired period for filing the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere filing of an appeal, or the availability of time to file one, does not operate as an automatic stay of an enforceable order or prevent recovery in the absence of a specific stay.

---