Prima facie exemption claim warranted interim protection against coercive recovery pending appeal after pre-deposit order was challenged.

An appellate pre-deposit order directing deposit of 20% of the demand was found vulnerable for interim purposes because the petitioner's exemption-notification plea had not been considered. On a prima facie reading, the court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case, and the appellate authority's failure to engage with the principal contention amounted to non-application of mind for the limited purpose of interim relief. Coercive recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, and the writ petition was disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the tax dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's order directing deposit of 20% of the demand could be sustained when the petitioner's claim based on exemption notifications was not considered, and whether interim protection against coercive recovery was warranted pending appeal.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner relied on exemption notifications and that the appellate authority did not advert to them while directing pre-deposit. On a prima facie reading of those notifications, the petitioner was found to have made out a prima facie case. The absence of any meaningful consideration of the principal contention was treated as non-application of mind for the limited purpose of interim relief.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted protection against coercive action during the pendency of the appeal, and the writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits of the tax dispute.

---