Deemed service by registered post sustained dismissal for failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction.

Service of a stay order sent by registered post was treated as effective once the despatching authority established that it had been correctly posted to the addressee, triggering the statutory presumption of deemed service. The returned envelope endorsement that no such company existed at the address did not displace that presumption on the stated facts. Because the appellants did not comply with the pre-deposit direction attached to the stay order, the statutory consequence followed and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay order directing pre-deposit was to be treated as duly served on the appellants and, consequentially, whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction.

Analysis: The order sent by registered post was returned with the endorsement that no such company existed at the address. The Tribunal applied the principle governing service by post under the analogous statutory provision relating to service of orders, relying on the burden-shifting rule that the despatching authority must first show that the order was actually sent by registered post to the addressee before the statutory presumption of service can arise. On that basis, the stay order was treated as having been duly served. As no pre-deposit was made in compliance with the earlier direction, the statutory consequence under the pre-deposit provision followed.

Conclusion: The stay order was deemed to have been served on the appellants, and the appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order is despatched by registered post and the statutory foundation for service is established, the presumption of deemed service applies, and non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction justifies dismissal of the appeal.

---