Material change in circumstances required reconsideration of stay order; dismissal for non-deposit was unsustainable and appeal restored.

A material change in circumstances arose when the precedent relied on by the Tribunal to refuse full stay was referred to a Larger Bench before the compliance date. On that basis, the Tribunal was required to reconsider the interim order and could not consistently treat the appeal as dismissed for non-deposit while still fixing a compliance date. Refusal to modify the stay order on the ground that there was no change in circumstances, and on the basis that the appeal had already stood dismissed, was unsustainable. The orders were liable to be quashed and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the request for modification of the stay order and treating the appeal as dismissed for non-deposit, notwithstanding the subsequent reference of the very precedent relied upon by the Tribunal to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The Tribunal had directed deposit of 50% of the disputed amount and fixed a later date for reporting compliance. Before that compliance date, the decision on which the Tribunal had relied to deny full waiver was referred to a Larger Bench. That development constituted a material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of the earlier interim order. The Tribunal could not simultaneously treat the appeal as dismissed on the expiry of the deposit period and also list the matter for compliance. In these circumstances, refusal to modify the stay order on the grounds of no change in circumstances and prior dismissal of the appeal was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the modification request or in treating the appeal as dismissed for non-deposit; the orders were liable to be quashed and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.

---