Conditional stay in tax dispute granted with deposit and bank guarantee safeguards; blanket interim relief was refused.

A blanket stay of an impugned tax judgment was declined, but interim protection was granted on terms that secured the revenue interest. The Court ordered stay of operation of the judgment subject to deposit of 50% of the accrued tax liability or arrears, after adjusting amounts already paid or deposited, and furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance within the stipulated time. It also required the existing bank guarantees to continue, permitted recovery if default occurred, preserved refund if the appellants succeeded, and left parties free to pursue statutory remedies in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to a blanket stay of the impugned judgment and order, and what conditions should govern interim protection during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: The Court declined to grant an unrestricted stay, but considered that interim protection could be afforded on terms. It directed stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order subject to deposit of 50% of the accrued tax liability or arrears, after adjusting sums already paid or deposited, and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance within the stipulated time. The Court also required continuation of the bank guarantees, permitted recovery steps upon default, preserved refund if the appellants succeeded, and allowed the parties to pursue statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Interim relief was granted in a conditional form, not as a blanket stay, with the appellants required to comply with the specified deposit and security conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A blanket stay of a tax demand may be declined while interim protection is granted on conditions securing the revenue interest through deposit and bank guarantee.

---