Stay modification denied where contractual receipts differed from statutory fees and no undue hardship was shown.

Pari materia interim relief was declined where the tribunal had granted stay after a prima facie assessment and required deposit of the taxable component with interest to protect revenue. The Court held that similarity in nomenclature with another case did not establish identity of facts, because the amounts here arose from a contractual arrangement linked to the bus terminus, not statutory fees. In the absence of illegality, irregularity, or material showing undue hardship, a later request to modify or review the stay order could not succeed merely because a different interim view had been taken elsewhere. The pre-deposit direction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing modification of the stay order and directing pre-deposit of the service tax demand with interest.

Analysis: The relief sought depended on parity with another case in which waiver had been granted on the footing of statutory fees, whereas in the present matter the amounts were collected under a contractual arrangement in connection with the construction and use of the bus terminus. The Court held that mere similarity in nomenclature did not make the cases identical. The Tribunal had exercised discretion on a prima facie assessment, protected the revenue by requiring deposit of the taxable component with interest, and there was no material showing undue hardship. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the original stay order, a subsequent request for review or modification could not succeed merely because a different interim view had been taken in another matter.

Conclusion: The refusal to modify the stay order was upheld and the direction for pre-deposit was held to be justified, against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

---