Interlocutory stay conditions in tax recovery stand where discretion is not shown to be perverse or arbitrary.

An interlocutory order requiring part payment as a condition for stay of a substantial tax demand was upheld because the challenge did not disclose any question of law or any basis for appellate interference. The discretionary condition was found neither perverse nor arbitrary, and there was no indication that relevant considerations had been excluded. The asserted ceiling on liability was not accepted at this stage and was left to be examined in the appeal on merits. The challenge was therefore rejected, with the exercise of discretion treated as judicious.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the interlocutory order directing part payment as a pre-condition for stay of a substantial tax demand disclosed any question of law or justified appellate interference.

Analysis: The order impugned before the appellate forum was an interlocutory order resting on the exercise of discretion in fixing a condition for interim relief against recovery of a large tax demand. The challenge did not disclose perversity or exclusion of relevant considerations, and the condition imposed was not shown to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court also held that the asserted ceiling on liability could not be accepted at face value at this stage and would have to be examined in the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected as no question of law arose and the exercise of discretion was found to be judicious.

---