https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369803 A litigant seeking discretionary writ relief against a conditional stay order must first comply with, or lawfully challenge, the earlier operative direction. Where the petitioner ignored a prior Tribunal requirement to deposit part of the disputed demand and did not challenge that condition, the Tribunal was justified in declining to vary it when stay was later sought. The High Court found no arbitrariness or other ground for interference under Article 226, and treated the petitioner's non-compliance as material to the exercise of discretion. The deposit condition therefore remained undisturbed and interference was refused. en-us Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2018 13:33:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369803 A litigant seeking discretionary writ relief against a conditional stay order must first comply with, or lawfully challenge, the earlier operative direction. Where the petitioner ignored a prior Tribunal requirement to deposit part of the disputed demand and did not challenge that condition, the Tribunal was justified in declining to vary it when stay was later sought. The High Court found no arbitrariness or other ground for interference under Article 226, and treated the petitioner's non-compliance as material to the exercise of discretion. The deposit condition therefore remained undisturbed and interference was refused. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369803