Pre-deposit conditions for stay in a debatable tax dispute are not lightly disturbed in writ jurisdiction.

A reasoned interim order imposing a 25% pre-deposit as a condition for stay in a debatable classification dispute was upheld in writ jurisdiction, because the Tribunal had considered the rival submissions and acted within its discretion under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The High Court found no perversity, procedural unfairness, or other basis to interfere under Article 226. Relief based on financial hardship was refused because that plea had not been advanced before the Tribunal and no subsequent change in financial position was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for stay pending appeal warranted interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the rival submissions, noted that the classification dispute was debatable, and passed the deposit condition while dealing with the stay application in appeal under Section 26(6) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The High Court found the order to be reasonable and saw no basis for interference. The request for relief on the ground of financial hardship was declined because such hardship had not been urged before the Tribunal and no subsequent change in financial position was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge to the stay order failed, and the condition directing deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned interim order imposing a partial-deposit condition for stay in a debatable tax dispute will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent perversity, procedural unfairness, or a demonstrated change of circumstances justifying variation.

---