JUDGMENT The Petitioner has two grievance in this writ petition. The first is regarding Exts. P8 and P9 orders of stay passed by the appellate authority in appeal filed by the petitioners. According to the petitioner since the petitioner has a strong prima facie case, the appellate authority ought not have imposed the condition of paying 50% of the disputed tax for stay. The second is regarding collection charges. According to the petitioner in so far as the petitioner is paying the tax directly to the Department no collection charge is payable. As far as the first question is concerned I am not inclined to interfere with Exts. P8 and P9 orders in so far as the appellate authority has exercised the discretion vested in him correctly. But the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax and the respondent is likely to interpret the direction in Exts. P8 and P9 as payment of 50% of the balance payable. I am of the opinion that in so far as Exts. P8 and P9 orders direct payment 50% of the disputed tax, since the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax no further amount need be payable for satisfying the condition in Exts. P8 and P9. Accordingly it is clarified that if the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax no further amount need be paid by the petitioner. The question of recovery of collection charges from the petitioner is left open to be agitated separately. The writ petition is disposed of as above.