Full stay of disputed tax may be justified when a prima facie case exists and partial interim relief is already in place.

Where a substantial prima facie case exists and the appellate forum has already granted partial interim relief, insisting on deposit of the entire disputed tax may make the appellate remedy onerous. The article notes that a revision challenging only the scope of interim protection was addressed against an existing stay of 90% of the disputed tax, and the appellate process was still pending on merits. In that setting, the disputed tax demand was kept fully in abeyance until disposal of the first appeal to preserve the effectiveness of the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of disputed tax should remain stayed in entirety pending disposal of the first appeal where the appellate authorities had already granted substantial interim relief and a prima facie case was made out.

Analysis: The revision challenged only the quantum of interim protection. The appellate authorities had already granted relief by staying 90% of the disputed tax, which indicated the existence of a prima facie case. In such circumstances, the appellate remedy should not be rendered onerous by insisting on deposit of the entire disputed tax, particularly when the appeal itself remained pending for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The demand of the disputed tax was directed to remain stayed in full until the first appeal is decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a substantial prima facie case is found and partial stay has already been granted by the appellate forum, the disputed tax liability may be kept fully in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal to preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy.

---