Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). Tirunelveli, in a stay application filed by the petitioner pending appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. 2. After considering the relevant circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has directed payment of the tax in ten instalments commencing from 15th January 1990. I do not find any justification for interfering with the same. 3. Learned Counsel submits that it has been the practice of this Court, brought into existence by some other learned Judges that if one-third of the amount is deposited, that will be sufficient for grant of stay. I cannot accede to the proposition that such a practice can be established by an order of this Court. When it is a question of granting stay pending appeal, it is for the Appellate Authority to exercise the discretion properly in a judicial manner and decide whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the particular case an order for stay should be granted as prayed for bv the appellant, and whether any condition should be imposed by the Appellate Authority for granting stay. That cannot be a matter for a strait-jacket formula. The Supreme Court has laid down the principles on which a stay application should be considered. This Court has also considered this question in Sri Balaji Trading Co. v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode and another 1 . By following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and also this Court, the Appellate Authority has passed the order in this case. I do not find any justification for interfering with the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is hoped that the Appellate Authority will dispose of the appeal at an early date. It is open to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority for hearing the appeal as early as possible.