Conditional stay of disputed tax recovery upheld where the orders reflected consideration and the statute allowed terms.

Recovery of disputed tax through bankers pending appeal was not interfered with because appellate and revisional remedies had already been invoked, a stay application had been dealt with, and the revisional authority had granted stay on 50 per cent of the disputed tax. The Court held that no further writ relief was warranted on the recovery challenge in those circumstances. It also held that the stay orders were not non-speaking or arbitrary, because the record showed consideration of the dispute and the statute permitted stay on terms and conditions rather than an unconditional stay. The revisional stay order was allowed to continue until disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery of disputed tax through the bankers pending appeal and revision was arbitrary and illegal. (ii) Whether the orders refusing or granting stay of recovery were non-speaking and liable to be set aside for want of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery of disputed tax through the bankers pending appeal and revision was arbitrary and illegal.

Analysis: The assessment was under challenge and the appellate and revisional remedies were already invoked. The record showed that a stay application had been rejected at the appellate stage, a revision had been filed, and the revisional authority subsequently granted stay of collection of 50 per cent of the disputed tax. The Court also noted that an interim order had already directed refund of 50 per cent of the amount recovered and that compliance had been made. In those circumstances, no further interference with the recovery action was warranted in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery action did not survive for further relief, and no independent interference was made on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders refusing or granting stay of recovery were non-speaking and liable to be set aside for want of reasons.

Analysis: The Court examined the language of the appellate and revisional orders and held that both reflected consideration of the relevant facts and the nature of the dispute. The statute itself empowered the authorities to impose terms and conditions while granting stay of collection of disputed tax, and an unconditional stay was not contemplated. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the assessee and held that the impugned orders were not cryptic or passed without application of mind.

Conclusion: The stay orders were held to be valid and not liable to be set aside as non-speaking or arbitrary.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of without disturbing the revisional stay order, and the stay of collection of 50 per cent of the disputed tax was directed to continue until disposal of the appeals in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly authorises stay of disputed tax on terms and conditions, a conditional stay order supported by the record and reflecting consideration of the dispute is not liable to be treated as non-speaking or arbitrary merely because the reasons are brief.

---