Writ interference with pending tax appeal declined; appellate authority directed to decide the matter without pre-deposit.

The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned stay order while the statutory appeal remained pending, leaving the merits to the appellate forum. It held that the controversy should be decided in the pending appeal rather than under Article 226, and directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously without insisting on pre-deposit. The court therefore refrained from expressing any view on the validity of the impugned reasoning and confined its intervention to ensuring an effective appellate hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned stay order when the statutory appeal was pending, and whether the appellate authority should be directed to decide the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit.

Analysis: The appeal against the order-in-original was already pending before the appellate authority. In those circumstances, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the dispute or express any opinion on the validity of the impugned reasoning. The Court considered it appropriate to leave the controversy to be decided by the appellate forum itself, while ensuring that the appeal was heard without insistence on pre-deposit and disposed of expeditiously.

Conclusion: The Court declined substantive interference under Article 226 and directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal without insisting on pre-deposit.

---