JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri P.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The revision has been preferred against the order of tribunal dated 13.04.2016 by which the revisionist has been granted interim protection staying realisation of the disputed amount of tax subject to furnishing security of 85% of the amount, pending appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has a fair chance of success in the appeal as the assessment order was ex-parte and the tribunal has not taken into account the capacity of the revisionist to pay the disputed tax. 4. The perusal of the order of the tribunal reveals that it has considered the argument of the revisionist and found some substance in the same and has enhanced the interim protection of 60% as granted by the first Appellate Court to 85% of the disputed tax. 5. It is not the case that the tribunal has not applied its mind in passing the interim order. It is not necessary that in every case where an appeal is preferred a complete stay order should be passed. The grant of interim protection is at the discretion of the Authority subject to relevant criteria and well founded principles. 6. This revision is only for the sake of getting full stay of the deposit of the disputed tax and involves no question of law which is a condition precedent for maintaining a revision under section 58 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the revision and dismisses the same.