Discretionary interim stay relief upheld where no illegality or impropriety was shown in the Tribunal's conditional order.

A conditional interim stay granted by the Tribunal was upheld because discretionary interim relief is not ordinarily interfered with in judicial review unless there is demonstrable illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The Court found no infirmity in the stay order requiring deposit of part of the demand and a bond for the balance, and accepted the limited relief already granted by the Single Judge permitting instalment payment. The challenge to interference with the stay conditions therefore failed, leaving the Tribunal's order and the Single Judge's judgment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the Tribunal's interim order granting stay subject to deposit of 20% of the demand and a bond for the balance amount.

Analysis: The Tribunal had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction while considering the stay application. Such discretionary interim relief is not ordinarily amenable to judicial review unless there is error, illegality, irregularity, or impropriety. The Court found no such infirmity in the order under challenge. It also noted the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act while upholding the refusal of relief. The learned Single Judge had already taken a lenient view by permitting payment in instalments, which did not call for further interference.

Conclusion: Interference with the conditional stay order was declined and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The interim order of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Single Judge were left undisturbed, while instalment relief for payment of the stipulated amount was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional interim stay order passed in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction will not be interfered with in judicial review absent demonstrable illegality, irregularity, or impropriety.

---