Independent judgment in stay applications required; rejection based only on office memoranda was set aside for fresh consideration.

A quasi-judicial authority deciding a stay application must exercise independent judgment and cannot reject relief solely on the basis of administrative office memoranda. The HC found that the impugned order lacked such independent consideration, and as the prayer was limited and the revenue raised no objection, the rejection could not be sustained. The order was set aside and the stay application was revived for fresh decision by the appellate authority in accordance with law, without any adjudication on the merits of the tax dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the stay application was liable to be set aside and the application directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

Analysis: The rejection of the stay application was assailed on the ground that it rested solely on administrative office memoranda. The authority exercising stay jurisdiction was required to apply its own independent mind and take a quasi-judicial decision on the application. In view of the limited prayer and the absence of objection from the revenue side, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the stay application was revived for fresh decision by the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained procedural relief by way of remand of the stay application for reconsideration in accordance with law, without any adjudication on the merits of the tax dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority deciding a stay application must exercise independent judgment and cannot base its decision solely on administrative circulars or office memoranda.

---