Tribunal jurisdiction under sales tax law cannot extend to a deposit condition when no proceeding under that enactment is pending.

A tribunal cannot impose a deposit condition under the Central Sales Tax Act unless proceedings under that Act are actually pending before it and the matter is within its seisin. Here, the Tribunal was dealing only with a challenge under the local sales tax enactment, and no appeal or stay application under the Central Sales Tax Act was pending. On that undisputed factual basis, the direction requiring a deposit under the Central Sales Tax Act was held to be without jurisdiction and could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct deposit of Rs. 1 lakh under the Central Sales Tax Act when no appeal or stay application under that Act was pending before it.

Analysis: The Tribunal was seized only of the challenge concerning the order passed under the local sales tax enactment. No appeal or application under the Central Sales Tax Act was pending before it, and the factual position was not disputed. In these circumstances, the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction to impose a deposit condition under the Central Sales Tax Act for a matter not before it.

Conclusion: The direction requiring deposit under the Central Sales Tax Act was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was interfered with to the extent it imposed the Central Sales Tax deposit condition, and the writ petition succeeded accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot impose a statutory condition under a tax enactment unless proceedings under that enactment are actually pending before it and the matter falls within its seisin.

---