Refund orders remain enforceable absent a stay; filing a Special Leave Petition alone does not suspend compliance.

A refund directed by the appellate authority could not be withheld merely because the department said it had filed a Special Leave Petition, since filing an appeal does not suspend the operation of the order appealed from. In the absence of any stay from the competent forum, the appellate refund order remained binding and enforceable and had to be implemented. The writ petition therefore succeeded, and the department was required to comply with the refund order with interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund directed by the appellate authority could be withheld merely because the department claimed to have filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court without obtaining any stay.

Analysis: An order does not cease to operate merely because an appeal has been preferred against it. Unless the appellate forum stays the operation of the order, the order remains binding and must be implemented. The Court rejected the contention that the department could defer refund until final disposal of the alleged Supreme Court proceedings, and held that mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the effect of the impugned appellate order.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the refund directed by the appellate authority could not be withheld in the absence of a stay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the department was required to comply with the appellate refund order with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere filing of an appeal or special leave petition does not stay the operation of the order appealed against; the order remains effective and enforceable until stayed by a competent court.

---