Interim stay on municipal tax recovery should be exceptional, with courts balancing taxpayer protection against public revenue needs.

Interim restraint on recovery of municipal tax under Article 226 should not be granted as a routine measure because a levy is presumed valid until the challenge is decided and municipal revenue must remain available for civic functions. Where appropriate, the writ court should instead balance both sides by directing a workable interim arrangement, such as an undertaking to refund or adjust amounts if the levy is later struck down. Interim stay is justified only in exceptional circumstances after weighing prejudice to the challenger against the public interest in continued collection of revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court should ordinarily grant an interim stay restraining recovery of municipal tax pending challenge to the levy.

Analysis: Interim restraint on tax recovery under Article 226 is not to be granted as a matter of course. A levy is presumed valid until the challenge is decided, and the court must protect both sides by preventing prejudice to the ratepayers if they succeed and by avoiding blockage of the municipality's revenue needed for civic functions and financial obligations. The proper course, where appropriate, is to fashion a workable interim arrangement, including an undertaking to refund or adjust amounts if the levy is ultimately struck down, rather than paralysing recovery of the impost.

Conclusion: The interim stay was unjustified and liable to be set aside; the municipality's recovery of the revised rate could proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In challenges to tax or municipal rate recovery under Article 226, interim stay should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and only after balancing the need to protect the challenger against the public interest in continued collection of revenue.

---