1. Writ petition challenging stay of tax payment under Section 24(7) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 742
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Jeevan Reddy : M.K.Mukherjee
State Of Orissa
Versus
Ion Exchange India Limited
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 7/21/95
A statutory bar cannot override the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the High Court should respect the legislative intent of such bars and grant stays only in exceptional cases, rather than as a matter of course.
Headnote:(A) Sales Tax Act - Section 24(7) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Statutory bar on stay of tax payment - Jurisdiction of High Court - A statutory bar created by a statute cannot bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution conferred upon the High Court - While exercising powers under Article 226, the High Court should keep in mind the legislative intention indicated by the statute and respect it - Interference should be limited to exceptional cases and not be a matter of course. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A challenge was made against the High Court's grant of a stay on tax payments. It was argued that the Sales Tax Act contained a statutory bar prohibiting the stay of tax payments pending the disposal of an application or reference, which should preclude the High Court from granting a stay in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory bar does not prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, but the High Court should respect the legislative intent and only interfere in exceptional cases.
Issues: Whether a statutory bar against staying tax payments under a state tax law prevents the High Court from granting a stay in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be barred by a statutory provision; however, the court should be mindful of the legislative intention and avoid granting stays as a matter of course, limiting such actions to exceptional circumstances.
Result: Special leave petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a statutory bar against staying tax payments under the Orissa Sales Tax Act precludes the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 2 )
3. Statutory bars cannot override Article 226 jurisdiction, though courts should respect legislative intent and grant stays only in exceptional cases. (Para 2 )
4. A statutory bar created by a statute cannot bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
5. Delay condoned and special leave petition dismissed with directions to the High Court to dispose of pending references expeditiously. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
6. Can a statutory bar prevent a High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No, a bar created by a statute cannot bar the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
7. How should High Courts approach statutory bars when exercising powers under Article 226?
High Courts should respect the legislative intention indicated by the statute and interfere only in exceptional cases, rather than as a matter of course. (Para 2 )
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) WITH the above observations the special leave petition is dismissed.
