JUDGMENT : 1. This writ application is filed by the petitioners for prohibiting the respondent authority from giving effect to the amendment of Clause (d) of sub-section (40) of section 2 arid section 22D of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 as amended by West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2008 read with Trade Circular dated September 01, 2008 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Government of West Bengal, Directorate of Commissioner of Taxes till the disposal of an application which is filed by the petitioners before the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal under section 8 of the Wets Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. 1. The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as under:- The provision of Clause (d) of sub-section (40) of section 2 and section 22D of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 has been amended by virtue of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2008. Consequent upon the above amendment the quantum of sales tax has been increased. The Constitutional validity of the above provisions are under challenge in an application bearing R.N. No. 886 of 2012 which is filed by the petitioners before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. The Tribunal while admitting the above application on July 12, 2013 gave liberty to the petitioners to file separate application in the event a demand notice is issued. The matter was again taken up on November 29, 2013 when the matter was adjourned to March 21, 2014 with a direction for exchanging affidavits in the meantime. According to the petitioners, their prayer for an interim order to restrain the respondent authority from giving effect to the aforesaid amended provisions was not entertained by the learned Tribunal. 2. The submission with regard to the rejection of the above prayer of the petitioners is disputed by Mr. A. Majumer, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. 3. This application is filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restraining the respondent authority from giving effect to the aforesaid amended provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 as also for the purpose of preponing the date of hearing of the application pending before the above learned Tribunal. 4. It is the settled principles of law that grant of stay of recovery of tax should be an exception and not a rule. 4. It is the settled principles of law that grant of stay of recovery of tax should be an exception and not a rule. It is also well settled principle of law that a levy does not become bad as soon as a proceeding is initiated assailing the Constitutional validity of the same. The only consideration at the interim stage is to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the tax payers in case they ultimately succeed at the end of the proceeding. 5. It is also the settled principles that in such a case if the interim order is passed and the proceeding ultimately fails it would be difficult for the authority to realise the tax after disposal of the proceeding. On the other hand, in the event, the tax is released on the basis of the amended provision and the challenge to the relevant provision of the statute is set aside there would be no difficulty in returning the amount is received in excess from the tax payers. That apart, it is to be borne in mind that the authority requires money to provide services to the tax payers uninterrupted. Reference may be made to the decision of Siliguri Municipality & Ors. v. Amalendu Das & Ors. reported in, AIR 1984 SC 653 and the relevant portion of the above decision are set out below:- "3. It is needless to stress that a levy or impost does not become bad as soon as a writ petition is instituted in order to assail the validity of the levy. So also there is no warrant for presuming the levy to be bad at the very threshold of the proceedings. The only consideration at that juncture is to ensure that no prejudice is occasioned to the rate payers in case they ultimately succeed at the conclusion of the proceedings. This object can be attained by requiring the body or authority levying the impost to give an Undertaking to refund or adjust against future dues, the levy of tax or rate of a part thereof as the case may be in the event of the entire levy or a part thereof being ultimately held to be invalid by the Court without obliging the tax-payers to institute a Civil Suit in order to claim the amount already recovered from them. On the other hand, the Court cannot be unmindful of the need to protect the authority levying the tax, for, at that stage the Court has to proceed on the hypothesis that the challenge may or may not succeed. The Court has to show awareness of the fact that in a case like the present a municipality cannot function or meet its financial obligations if its source of revenue is blocked by an interim order restraining the municipality from recovering taxes as per the impugned provision. And that the municipality has to maintain essential civic services like water supply, street lighting and public institutions like schools, dispensaries, libraries etc. What is more, supplies have to be purchased and salaries have to be paid. The grant of an interlocutory order of this nature would paralyze the administration and dislocate the entire working of the municipality. It seems that those serious ramifications of the matter were lost sight of while making the impugned order." 6. In view of the above, let there be a direction proponing the date of hearing of the application pending before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal on January 20, 2014, Affidavit-in-Opposition be filed with January 13, 2014; Affidavit-in-Reply thereof, if any, be filed within January 18, 2014. 7. The learned Tribunal is also requested not to grant unnecessary adjournment on the prayers made on behalf of either of the parties, if any. 8. During the pendency of the above application before the learned Tribunal the parties shall act on the basis of the provisions of Clause (d) of sub-section (40) of section 2 read with section 221) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 subject to the results of the application pending before the learned Tribunal and in the event, the challenge thrown by the petitioners to the Constitutional validity of the above provisions succeeds, the respondent authority shall refund the excess money collected on the basis of the amended provision to the members of the petitioner No. 1 within three months from date of disposal of the application under reference by the learned Tribunal. 9. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs.