Municipality wins appeal restoration despite revenue opposition. Appeal reinstated with recovery halt.

The Tribunal allowed the restoration application filed by a municipality whose appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit order. Despite opposition from the revenue, citing past cases of denied restoration due to delayed payment, the Tribunal found no deliberate delay by the appellant and granted the restoration. The appeal was reinstated, and further recovery by the revenue was prohibited during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal withdrew all attachment orders, set a final hearing date, and emphasized consistency with previous decisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit order.
2. Appellant's compliance with pre-deposit order and subsequent appeal dismissal.
3. Arguments for restoration application.
4. Revenue's opposition to restoration application.
5. Precedent cases cited in support of opposition.
6. Decision on restoration application and directions given.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a municipality, filed a restoration application for their appeal dismissed due to non-compliance of a pre-deposit order. The application sought early hearing due to revenue's attachment. The appeal was against a demand levied with interest and penalties under various sections.

2. The appellant was directed to deposit a specific amount within a deadline, failing which the appeal was dismissed. The revenue collected an amount exceeding the disputed tax through attachment. The restoration application was filed promptly after the appeal dismissal.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no deliberate delay in compliance. They were actively working on depositing the ordered amount but faced financial constraints. The appellant had taken steps to comply and intended to approach the High Court.

4. The revenue opposed the restoration application, citing a precedent where restoration was denied due to delayed payment after appeal dismissal. Another case was mentioned where the High Court refused to interfere after a significant delay in compliance.

5. Despite the revenue's opposition, the Tribunal found no deliberate delay on the appellant's part in complying with the pre-deposit order. Relying on precedent decisions, the Tribunal allowed the restoration application, restored the appeal, and prohibited further recovery by the revenue during the appeal's pendency.

6. The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of all attachment orders, set a final hearing date, and emphasized that the issue was covered by previous Tribunal decisions. The restoration application was granted, and the appeal was reinstated for further proceedings.

---