https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159468 The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with an interlocutory order granting stay of recovery on conditional payment and security terms. The appellate authority had heard the petitioner, acted on the record, and exercised jurisdiction to impose conditions while granting interim stay pending revision. A conditional stay order, by itself, did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or denial of hearing. As the order was interim in nature and passed within statutory power, writ interference was held unwarranted, and the recovery-related order was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:36:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159468 The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with an interlocutory order granting stay of recovery on conditional payment and security terms. The appellate authority had heard the petitioner, acted on the record, and exercised jurisdiction to impose conditions while granting interim stay pending revision. A conditional stay order, by itself, did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or denial of hearing. As the order was interim in nature and passed within statutory power, writ interference was held unwarranted, and the recovery-related order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159468