Statutory appeal pending bars writ interference, while interim protection may be granted against coercive tax recovery.

Where a statutory appeal under Section 46(5) was already pending against recovery orders for value added tax and entry tax, the writ court declined to entertain the petition on merits and directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The court considered it inappropriate to interfere at that stage, but protected the petitioner by requiring expeditious disposal of the stay and waiver-of-predeposit applications and by restraining coercive recovery until those applications were decided, subject to compliance with the directed deposit and appearance before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when a statutory appeal under Section 46(5) was already pending and interim relief on recovery was sought.

Analysis: The dispute concerned recovery orders imposing value added tax and entry tax. Since an appeal had been filed before the competent appellate authority along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay, the writ court found it inappropriate to interfere at that stage. The court instead protected the petitioner by directing expeditious consideration of the stay and waiver applications and by restraining coercive recovery until those applications were decided, subject to compliance with the directed deposit and appearance before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with interim protection granted pending the appellate authority's decision on stay and waiver.

---