JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) Sale Tax, Moradabad dated 4-6-1977 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner u/S. 10(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It appears that M/s. Raza Textiles Ltd. Jwalanagar, Rampur had been assessed for the year 1972-73 for U.P. Sales as well as Central Sales. Aggrieved by the order of assessment made under these two Acts, two appeals were preferred by the petitioner. The appeals were also accompanied by applications for stay. The learned Judge did not grant any stay order to the petitioner on the ground that 1/3 of the total amount of assessment had not been deposited alongwith the memo of appeal. Thereafter, two applications were filed by the applicant for waiving with the conditions of deposit of 1/3 of the assessed amount before the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. There applications were rejected by the impugned order.
2. Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that as the petitioner had an unanswerable case on merits and the appeal was bound to be allowed, therefore the Additional Judge (Revisions) committed an error of law in not waiving with the requirement of the deposit of 1/3. He wanted me to go through the judgment of the assessment of the Sales Tax Officer to substantiate his point. As I was not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel I did not examine the correctness of the judgment of the Sales Tax Officer. To my mind an order of stay is not allowed as of which (?) simply because a party has an arguable or prima facie case in his favour. There are other conditions apart from the fulfilment of the requirement of prima facie case, which also must be satisfied before a stay order can be granted, Moreover, it is settled that the granting of a stay order of refusing to waive with the conditions of deposit of 1/3 of the assessed amount is a matter of discretion with the authority. The exercise of the discretion is not to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there are no grounds showing that exercise of that discretion was either capricious or arbitrary. Accordingly, I see no ground to accept this writ petition, which I reject.