Specific stay application required in tax appeal; without it, no stay order and no revision lies.

Where the governing provision requires a specific stay request in the appeal or by separate application, failure to make that request means the appellate authority cannot be faulted for not granting stay. In the absence of any stay order, the revisional remedy dependent on such an order is unavailable. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the High Court's approach and left undisturbed the view that a party must seek stay in the prescribed manner before invoking further revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a prayer for stay of collection of tax in the appeal or a separate application as required, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner could be faulted for not passing a stay order and whether revision would lie.

Analysis: The petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner did not include a request for stay of tax collection and no separate application for such relief was filed as contemplated by the governing provision. In that situation, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to pass an order of stay. Once no order under the stay provision was passed, the consequential revisional remedy predicated on such an order was unavailable. The High Court's approach on this procedural footing was not found to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The challenge failed; the petitioner was required to seek stay before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in the manner prescribed, and no revision lay in the absence of such an order.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal left undisturbed the view that a stay request must be specifically made in the prescribed manner before invoking further revisional jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires a specific stay request in appeal or by separate application, failure to make such a request precludes faulting the appellate authority for not granting stay and bars revision dependent on that order.

---