Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rejection of the stay application pending disposal of the statutory appeal was justified and whether recovery of the balance disputed tax could be stayed on conditions.
Analysis: The appeal was pending before the appellate tribunal and the statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal had been made. In such a situation, recovery of the balance demand ordinarily deserves to be stayed unless special reasons are recorded for refusing stay. The impugned order did not disclose cogent reasons for rejecting the stay application, and the question whether the assessment order could ultimately be sustained was a matter for the appellate tribunal on merits. The statutory framework also contemplated grant of stay subject to conditions under Section 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Conclusion: The rejection of the stay application was held unjustified, the impugned order was set aside, and stay of recovery was granted subject to further deposit of 25% of the disputed tax so that the total deposit became 50% during pendency of the appeal.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the refusal of stay and securing interim protection against recovery during the appeal, subject to an additional monetary condition.
Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory appeal is pending and the prescribed pre-deposit has been made, recovery of the balance demand should ordinarily remain stayed unless special reasons are recorded, and any refusal of stay must be supported by cogent reasons; stay may be granted subject to conditions.