Stay of reassessment during remand challenge requires reasons; bare refusal of stay was set aside.

Revisional jurisdiction includes an incidental power to stay reassessment proceedings pending challenge to a remand order, but that discretion must be exercised with reasons. A bare refusal of stay, especially where continuation of reassessment could render the superior challenge infructuous, is not sustainable. The refusal to stay was therefore set aside, and the revising authority was directed to reconsider the stay request afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revising authority had power to stay reassessment proceedings pending challenge to the remand order, and whether refusal of stay without reasons was sustainable.

Analysis: The revisional authority's power to grant stay was treated as incidental to its revisional jurisdiction. Although the power was discretionary, its exercise required reasons showing why stay was refused. Where reassessment proceedings continue while the remand order is under challenge, the absence of a stay may render the superior proceeding infructuous and is ordinarily contrary to the interests of justice. A bald refusal of stay, unsupported by reasons, could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The refusal to stay the reassessment proceedings was unsustainable and was set aside; the revising authority was directed to reconsider the stay request afresh in accordance with law.

---