V.K.Khanna, C.J.- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.96 passed to Civil Rule No.2077 of 1996. 2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Maheswari, assisted by Mrs A.Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Dr. B.P.Todi, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner Mr. Maheswari has urged that 50% of the demand raised could not be asked to be deposited inasmuch as the provisions of section 33 (6) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 requires satisfactory proof of the payment of tax including penalty-, if any which is admitted to be due or twenty percent of the amount of tax including penalty, if any, which has been assessed or levied whichever is higher. 4. The aforesaid provision of section 33 (6) of the Act is for the purpose of making the appeal entertainable and for that purpose the mandatory requirement is that the amount as mentioned above in section 33 (6) of the Act has to be deposited. However, mere filing of an appeal does not amount that the amount which has been demanded under the Act gets automatically stayed. For the purpose of getting the tax liability raised under the demand notice stayed, an application for stay has to be moved for which specific power has been given under the proviso to section 33 (6) of the Act and the stay application has to be dealt with by the appellate authority and it is for the appellate authority to decide as to on the particular facts and circumstances pf the case what order should be passed on the stay application. 5. In our opinion, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has therefore no force. The appellate authority had asked him to pay 50% of the amount demanded on the stay application which the petitioner/appellant had moved in the pending appeal filed by him. Learned Single Judge has also granted one month's time for payment of aforesaid 50% amount with a direction that the appeal be decided within three months from the date of receipt of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We see no vice in the order passed either by the appellate authority or by the learned Single Judge and the same requires no interference in this appeal. 7. 6. We see no vice in the order passed either by the appellate authority or by the learned Single Judge and the same requires no interference in this appeal. 7. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is dismissed. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, time for depositing 50% amount is extended till 3 0.6.96. We make no order as to costs.