https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258194 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. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 06:03:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258194 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258194