Interim tax stay justified on prima facie review where no perversity or financial hardship was shown.

At the interim stay stage, the Tribunal's grant of stay to only 80% of the disputed tax demand was upheld because the assessee failed to show perversity in the revisional findings or produce documentary proof of financial hardship. The assessment was based on the assessee's own disclosures and material suggesting suppression of purchases and sales, repeated use of Form-38, and non-maintenance of the mandatory Form-XLI register under the U.P. VAT Rules. Since only a prima facie assessment was required, the Tribunal's view that a fuller stay was not justified was found to be unobjectionable, and no interference was warranted in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in granting stay only to the extent of 80% of the disputed tax demand and whether any interference was warranted in revision.

Analysis: The assessment order was founded on the assessee's own disclosures and other material indicating suppression of purchases and sales, repeated use of Form-38, and non-maintenance of the mandatory Form-XLI register under the U.P. VAT Rules. The revisional Court found that the assessee failed to show any perversity in the findings or place documentary evidence of financial hardship. At the stage of challenge to an interim stay order, only a prima facie assessment was required, and the Tribunal's view that the assessee had not established a stronger case for fuller stay could not be said to be erroneous.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Tribunal's order granting stay to the extent of 80%; the revisions were rightly dismissed.

---