AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.-Delay condoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that sub-section (7) of Section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act clearly says that
"The payment of the amount, if any, of tax due in accordance with the order of the Tribunal in respect of which an application has been made under subsection (1) shall not be stayed pending the disposal of such application or any reference made in consequence thereof, but if such amount is reduced as the result of such reference, the excess tax paid shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 14"
and that in view of the said statutory bar, the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant stay in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot agree with the learned counsel that the said bar created by a statute can bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution conferred upon the High Court. But, at the same time we agree with the learned counsel that while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should keep in mind the legislative intention indicated by sub-section (7) and should respect it. Only in exceptional cases should the Court interfere and not as a matter of course. We are sure that in matters coming hereafter, the High Court shall keep this aspect in mind and shall not treat the decision under appeal as a precedent.
We further request the High Court to dispose of the references which are now pending in the High Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today.
With the above observations the special leave petition is dismissed.