Tribunal order implementation despite pending reference proceedings, with consequential relief preserved subject to security for refund.

Pendency of reference proceedings did not justify withholding implementation of an operative Tribunal decision where no stay had been granted and the department had not taken timely steps to secure effective hearing. The Court directed the authorities to follow and implement the Tribunal's ruling for the relevant years and grant consequential relief, while preserving the respondents' rights in the reference proceedings and their ability to insist on adequate security for any refund. The pending appeals were also directed to be heard and decided within a fixed time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorities could be directed to follow and implement the Tribunal's earlier decision and grant consequential relief to the assessee despite pending reference proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal's decision had been rendered earlier, and the department had not taken timely steps to secure a reference or effective expeditious hearing. In these circumstances, the pendency of reference applications did not justify withholding implementation of the Tribunal's ruling in the assessee's case. The Court also took note that the assessee was a Central Government undertaking and that the petition was specifically for implementation of the Tribunal's judgment. The relief was, however, made subject to the respondents' rights in the reference proceedings and their power to insist on adequate security for refund.

Conclusion: The authorities were directed to follow and implement the Tribunal's decision for the relevant years, and the pending appeals were directed to be heard and decided within a fixed time.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of reference proceedings does not, by itself, justify refusal to implement an operative Tribunal decision when no stay has been granted and the equities of the case favour immediate compliance.

---