High Court grants limitation protection, allows appeal hearing on merits. Petitioners must deposit penalty amount.

The High Court granted limitation protection and allowed the Appellate Tribunal to proceed with the appeal hearing on merits. Petitioners were required to deposit 15% of the penalty amount within eight weeks. The Court found a prima facie case in the appeals and directed the Tribunal to hear them on merits post the deposit. The financial condition of petitioners was inadequately considered by the Tribunal, leading to modification of the impugned order. The Court instructed the Tribunal to issue a final order within six months, free from previous influences, and allowed petitioners to present their case effectively.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of prayer for waiver of pre-deposit by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Consideration of merits of the case by the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Financial condition of the petitioners not being considered by the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Modification of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of the rejection of the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit by the Appellate Tribunal in two writ petitions. The Appellate Tribunal had directed the petitioners to deposit their entire penalty amounts within 30 days. The High Court, after considering the materials on record, granted limitation protection and allowed the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing of the appeal on its merit. The petitioners were required to deposit 15% of the penalty amount within eight weeks to continue the appeal process.

2. The High Court further analyzed the consideration of the merits of the case by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners contended that the order of the Special Director had serious irregularities and illegalities, which were not addressed by the Tribunal. The financial condition of the petitioners was also brought up, stating that the Tribunal did not consider it adequately. The High Court found that a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioners in their appeals, and therefore directed the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeals on merits after the petitioners had deposited 15% of the penalty amount.

3. Regarding the financial condition of the petitioners not being considered by the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court acknowledged the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel. It was argued that the Tribunal had not appropriately assessed the financial standing of the petitioners, assuming they had sufficient assets due to their dealings in substantial wealth. The High Court took this into consideration and modified the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, allowing the appeals to be heard on merits after the petitioners had made the required deposit.

4. Lastly, the High Court focused on the modification of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. It directed that the appeals of the petitioners should be heard on merits, with the impugned order being modified accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to pass a final order on the appeals within six months, ensuring that no observations from the previous order would influence the final decision. The petitioners were granted the opportunity to raise their points before the Appellate Tribunal, which would consider each point on its merits and provide a reasoned order.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petitions and pending applications, emphasizing that a certified copy of the order should be delivered to the Appellate Tribunal promptly.

---