Interim stay on Tribunal proceedings where parallel adjudication could defeat the pending tax appeal and duplicate litigation.

Further proceedings before the Tribunal were treated as a continuation of the order under challenge in the tax appeal, so parallel adjudication was considered unnecessary and potentially duplicative. The Court noted that the appellant had already made the mandatory pre-deposit and that allowing the Tribunal to continue could render the appellate challenge ineffective if the tax appeal succeeded. It also observed that any consequential orders arising from the Tribunal's decision would not survive if the appeal were allowed. On that basis, the Court declined to permit the Tribunal to proceed with the connected appeals and granted interim protection to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether further proceedings before the Tribunal arising from the impugned remand order should be stayed pending disposal of the tax appeal.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal was a continuation of the very order under challenge in the tax appeal. The appellant had already made the mandatory pre-deposit, and permitting the Tribunal to proceed would duplicate proceedings and may render the appellate challenge nugatory if the tax appeal succeeds. The Court also noted that the consequential orders flowing from the Tribunal's decision would not survive if the tax appeal were allowed.

Conclusion: The Court declined to let the Tribunal proceed further with the connected appeals and effectively granted interim protection to the appellant.

---