Doctrine of merger barred restoration of appeals after breach of the High Court-fixed pre-deposit deadline.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to restore appeals after the appellant failed to comply with the High Court's extended deadline for pre-deposit. The High Court's order was treated as bringing the interim pre-deposit direction within the supervisory appellate process, so the Tribunal could not disregard the extended time once fixed. On that basis, the doctrine of merger applied and the Tribunal became functus officio after expiry of the compliance period without payment. The competing view that delayed compliance could be accepted in the interest of justice and the appeals restored was rejected, and the restoration applications failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to restore the appeals after the appellant failed to comply with the High Court's extended time for pre-deposit, and whether the doctrine of merger rendered the Tribunal functus officio.

Analysis: The appeals had been dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The majority held that the High Court's order, which dismissed the challenge and extended time for compliance, brought the interim pre-deposit order within the supervisory appellate process so that the Tribunal could not ignore the extended deadline. On that view, once the time granted by the High Court expired without compliance, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to revive the appeals. The contrary view, that delayed compliance could be accepted in the interest of justice and the appeals restored, was not accepted by the majority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore the appeals after violation of the High Court-fixed pre-deposit deadline, the doctrine of merger applied, and the restoration applications were rejected.

---