Tax recovery stay must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship before refusing full relief.

A stay application in tax recovery must be decided on relevant factors, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, likely injury to both sides, and the assessee's financial hardship. An order need not be elaborate, but it must show application of mind to the material issues. Where the authority focuses unduly on instalments and fails to address taxability and hardship, the stay order is unsustainable and calls for fresh reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting full stay of recovery of extra sales tax demand and granting instalments was sustainable when the relevant factors for stay were not properly considered.

Analysis: The authority deciding a stay application is not required to write an elaborate order, but the order must disclose consideration of the material issues and show application of mind. In deciding whether recovery should be stayed, the authority must consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, likely loss or injury to either side, and the financial hardship of the assessee. Here, the order placed undue emphasis on the request for instalments and did not adequately deal with the challenge to taxability, the existence of a prima facie case, or the alleged financial distress.

Conclusion: The order was not sustainable and had to be reconsidered afresh by the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh decision on the stay application, with interim protection and a direction to make a conditional deposit in the meantime.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay application in tax recovery must be decided on relevant factors such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship, and the order must disclose application of mind to those factors.

---