Stay pending tax appeal can carry additional conditions despite statutory pre-deposit under the value added tax law.

In an appeal under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the stay power under Section 33(6)(a) operates independently of the statutory pre-deposit required for admission of the appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit does not automatically secure stay of recovery of the remaining disputed tax, because the stay authority may impose terms and conditions it considers fit. The court also noted that further verification of records justified the exercise of discretion. On that basis, the additional condition requiring deposit of 25% of the disputed tax was held to be within statutory discretion and the challenge to the stay order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the authority granting stay of recovery could lawfully impose an additional condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax when the appellants had already made the statutory pre-deposit for admission of the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal against the revisional order was admitted after compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The power to grant stay pending appeal is conferred separately under Section 33(6)(a) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and is expressly subject to such terms and conditions as the authority may think fit. The earlier pre-deposit required for admission of the appeal does not automatically entitle the dealer to stay of the remaining disputed tax. A contrary view would render the stay provision ineffective. The authority also recorded that the records required further verification and exercised discretion while granting stay.

Conclusion: The additional condition imposed while granting stay was within statutory discretion and did not suffer from legal infirmity. The challenge to the stay order failed.

---