Stay of tax recovery cannot be conditioned on further payment after deposit made to maintain the statutory appeal

The HC held that, where the petitioner had already deposited 25% of the disputed tax to maintain the statutory appeal and a broader legal issue was pending consideration, insisting on further payment as a condition for stay of recovery was unjustified. The court interfered with the additional payment requirement, set it aside, and stayed recovery under the revisional order during pendency of the appeal to preserve the subject matter in dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing further payment of disputed tax as a condition for stay of recovery during pendency of the appeal required interference.

Analysis: The petitioner had already deposited 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for maintaining the statutory appeal. The challenge to the revisional order was also stated to involve a larger legal issue already pending consideration. In these circumstances, insisting upon further payment during the appeal was considered unjustified, and the stay arrangement was required to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.

Conclusion: The order imposing the additional payment condition was interfered with and set aside, and recovery pursuant to the revisional order was stayed pending the appeal.

---