Discretionary stay of disputed tax recovery depends on merits; part-payment and pending appeal do not create an automatic right.

Power to grant stay of recovery of disputed tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act is discretionary and includes the power to refuse stay. A prima facie interim order on a stay request will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perversity or illegality is shown, and the High Court declined to disturb the refusal. Part-payment of disputed tax and a pending appeal do not create an automatic right to stay; the authority may decide the application on merits, while giving credit for amounts already deposited and, where appropriate, keeping coercive recovery in abeyance for a limited period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to grant stay of recovery of disputed tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 called for interference; (ii) whether the revisional authority was bound to grant stay merely because the dealer had deposited part of the disputed tax and had a pending appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to grant stay of recovery of disputed tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 called for interference.

Analysis: The power under Section 33(6)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is enabling in nature and permits the authority to grant stay on such terms as it thinks fit, which necessarily includes the power to refuse stay. The impugned order recorded only a prima facie view on the stay request. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interference was not warranted because the prima facie conclusion was not shown to be perverse. The Court also declined to record a finding on the scope of Rule 26(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant stay did not call for interference and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was bound to grant stay merely because the dealer had deposited part of the disputed tax and had a pending appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 33(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 did not create an automatic right to stay. Payment of 25% of the disputed tax by itself did not compel grant of stay, and the authority was entitled to consider the stay application on its merits. The dealer was, however, entitled to credit for amounts already deposited while paying the balance demand, and coercive recovery was kept in abeyance for a limited period if the balance was paid within time.

Conclusion: The existence of part-payment and pending appeal did not make grant of stay mandatory; the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with only limited protective directions against coercive recovery for a short period to facilitate payment of the balance tax and preserve the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision conferring power to grant stay pending appeal is discretionary and enables refusal of stay; in writ jurisdiction, a prima facie interim order is not interfered with unless perversity or illegality is shown.

---