Binding dispensation from pre-deposit applies to connected appeals; tribunal order insisting on full penalty deposit was set aside.

A tribunal cannot insist on full pre-deposit where an earlier HC order had already granted dispensation on specified instalment terms and expressly extended that relief to all connected appeals. Compliance with the instalment schedule placed on record showed that the connected appeal was governed by the binding earlier direction, so the later order refusing dispensation could not stand. The HC set aside the impugned order and directed that the appeal proceed on merits without insisting on deposit of the entire penalty amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing dispensation with pre-deposit of the penalty amount and directing deposit of the entire penalty could be set aside, and whether the appeal was to be heard on merits without insisting on full pre-deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner's earlier writ petition had already resulted in dispensation with pre-deposit on the petitioner agreeing to deposit a quantified amount in instalments, and that order was expressly made applicable to all pending connected appeals. The present petition arose from one such connected appeal, and counsel placed on record compliance with the instalment schedule to the extent already paid and the balance proposed to be paid. In these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting dispensation could not survive, and the appeal was required to proceed in terms of the earlier binding order governing the petitioner's connected appeals.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order refusing dispensation with pre-deposit was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be decided on merits without insisting on deposit of the entire penalty amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a court has already granted dispensation from pre-deposit on specified terms and has made that relief applicable to all connected appeals, a subsequent tribunal order ignoring that binding direction cannot be sustained.

---