Interlocutory stay of tax demand did not raise any substantial question of law, so revision was dismissed.

The challenge to an interlocutory stay order was confined to whether the Tribunal's refusal to disturb a conditional stay of tax demand raised any substantial question of law in revision. The High Court found that the First Appellate Authority had granted stay on deposit of 50% of the tax and stayed recovery of the balance, and that this interim arrangement did not disclose any substantial question of law warranting revisional interference. The revision was therefore held not maintainable on the grounds advanced and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision disclosed any substantial question of law arising from the interim order granting conditional stay of tax demand.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the First Appellate Authority's order granting stay on deposit of 50% of the tax and staying recovery of the balance. The Court found that this interlocutory order did not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference in revision.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on the basis asserted and was dismissed.

---