Jurisdiction to hear stay petitions pending appeal cannot be refused merely because of prior forum shopping conduct.

An appellate authority retains jurisdiction to consider a stay petition on merits where appeals against assessment orders are pending. The court noted that there is no estoppel against an assessee seeking stay pending appeal, and that a stay request containing grounds and submissions must be examined rather than declined without consideration. Although repeated approaches to different forums amounted to forum shopping, that conduct did not justify refusal by the authority vested with jurisdiction over the appeals. The impugned communication was therefore interfered with and the matter directed to be reconsidered afresh after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the assessee's stay petition on merits and whether the impugned communication declining to act on it was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The assessee had pending appeals against assessment orders and had sought stay of recovery of demand. The appellate authority's order was read as not rejecting the power to grant stay, but as declining to act on the particular request for instalment payments and stay without considering the matter on merits. The Court held that there is no estoppel against seeking stay pending appeal and that the stay petition contained grounds and submissions which required consideration. Though the assessee's repeated approaches to different authorities showed conduct amounting to forum shopping, that circumstance could not justify refusal to consider the stay request by the appellate authority vested with jurisdiction over the appeals.

Conclusion: The appellate authority has jurisdiction to consider the stay petition on merits, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.

---