Mere admission of appeal does not justify stay of Tribunal order absent extraordinary circumstances.

Admission of an appeal by itself does not justify a stay of the impugned Tribunal order, as it only indicates that debatable issues arise. The earlier ad-interim protection had been granted for removal of office objections and had already lapsed. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the successful party before the Tribunal was entitled to retain the benefit of the order, and there was no basis to keep the deposited amount with the Revenue pending appeal. The request for interim protection was therefore rejected, leaving the Tribunal's order operative without stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to continue the stay of the Tribunal's order and retain the deposited with the Revenue pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: Admission of an appeal by itself only shows that debatable issues arise and does not automatically justify a stay of the impugned order. The earlier ad-interim protection had been granted in the context of removal of office objections and had come to an end. In the absence of any extraordinary circumstances, there was no basis to deprive the successful party before the Tribunal of the benefit of the impugned order.

Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected and the deposited amount was not ordered to be retained with the Revenue pending the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The motion for interim protection failed, leaving the Tribunal's order operative without the requested stay.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere admission of an appeal does not, by itself, warrant stay of the impugned order in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

---