Pre-deposit discretion upheld where full tax payment was treated as sufficient for admitting second appeals and granting stay.

The Tribunal's discretion on pre-deposit was upheld because it limited itself to admission of the second appeals and stay, without examining the merits of the assessments. Since the dealer had already paid the entire tax in the second appeals, the Tribunal treated that payment as sufficient pre-deposit and stayed recovery until disposal of the first appeals. Interference with such discretion is warranted only where it is arbitrary or lacks application of mind, and no such infirmity was shown. The order was therefore found to be reasonable, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the tax already paid as sufficient pre-deposit for admission of the second appeals and granting stay, and whether its order suffered from any legal infirmity giving rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had confined its finding to the question of pre-deposit and had not entered into the merits of the assessments. It noticed that the dealer had paid the entire tax amount in all the second appeals and, on that basis, exercised its discretion to hold the payment sufficient for admission and to grant stay against recovery till disposal of the first appeals. The power to determine the quantum of pre-deposit is discretionary, and interference is warranted only where that discretion is shown to be arbitrary or without application of mind. On the facts placed before it, the Tribunal's view was found to be reasonable and properly exercised.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and no substantial question of law arose. The challenge by the Revenue failed.

---