JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by G. D. KAMAT, J. - Heard somewhat at length on admission. Rule by consent to be beard forthwith. 2. Petitioner who is otherwise based at Bombay purchased a vessel "L. V. Priyadarshini" for the purpose of scrapping from M/s. V. S. Dempo & Co. Ltd. In the matter of this transaction a penalty of Rs. 12,45,436 had been imposed upon the petitioner under section 7(3)(ii) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964. In the present petition the legality and propriety of the penalty has been challenged. The first respondent, who is the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, by his two separate orders dated February 9, 1990, assessed the petitioner to pay sales tax in a very small amount for the period from January 4, 1989 to March 31, 1989. Thereafter a notice for reassessment under section 18 of the Act as also under Central Sales Tax Act was issued sometime in October 1990. In the reassessment proceedings no orders are passed for any levy of tax under the Sales Tax Act nor it is held out that any turnover has escaped assessment or the turnover assessed or reassessed is liable to tax but a penalty as mentioned above has been levied in the reassessment order. This order was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, who rejected the same and an appeal was taken before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal by certain order admitted the appeal but granted stay subject to the petitioner furnishing security for a sum equal to the penalty imposed in the form of a bank guarantee. 3. This order was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1992 on the ground that the second appeal is already pending before the Administrative Tribunal. Since appeal has already been admitted, this Court held there is no question of going into merits of the matter and directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the remaining amount to be secured by a security bond to be furnished to the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order. 1.5 lakhs and the remaining amount to be secured by a security bond to be furnished to the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order. Upon remand the Tribunal took up the matter and by its order dated January 31, 1994 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to furnish the bank guarantee and the security as directed by this Court and that is how the petitioner now lands in this Court. 4. By the declaration of sale between the parties signed on January 7, 1989 it is clear that petitioner purchased "L. V. Priyadarshini" for scrapping for a consideration of Rs. 1,37,25,000 exclusive of all taxes/duties on "as is where is basis". The declaration also states that the sale consideration of "L. V. Priyadarshini" is Rs. 1,37,25,000 and the responsibility is foisted on the petitioner to pay all taxes/duties or any other levies applicable. 5. According to the petitioner the sale has taken place in territorial waters of India and the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy and demand any sales tax on such transaction. In any case at the most it can be an inter-State transaction and in that case the Central sales tax that may be attracted is 4 per cent. This, according to him, is also clear when upon the vessel being taken to Bombay the octroi authorities made its own assessment and even held that the Central sales tax payable is 4 per cent. The next contention is that there can be reassessment under section 18 of the Goa Sales Tax Act, but that is in relation to the sales tax and not for the purpose of levying the penalty. In other words the submission is for the purpose of levying the penalty there cannot be any reassessment. Equally forceful is the connected argument that maximum penalty of Rs. 12,45,438 is levied by invoking section 7(3)(ii) without giving reasons when under that provision the authority must support the penalty by cogent reasons. Shri Nadkarni says that in the absence of reasons there is no justification for maximum penalty. Equally forceful is the connected argument that maximum penalty of Rs. 12,45,438 is levied by invoking section 7(3)(ii) without giving reasons when under that provision the authority must support the penalty by cogent reasons. Shri Nadkarni says that in the absence of reasons there is no justification for maximum penalty. Last but not the least it was urged that the sales tax payable would be on the price of the vessel for which it was sold and which cannot include the customs duties paid on Bill of Entry, for the reasons that the amount corresponding to the customs duty paid cannot be said to make a part of the turnover. Lastly it was urged that in the earlier writ petition instituted by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 201 of 1992 and disposed of by this Court the Division Bench held that the petitioner's Appeal No. 1 of 1992 had been already admitted by the Tribunal and being so, the Tribunal could not have now dismissed it by the impugned order without touching its merits. 6. The learned Advocate-General in opposing this writ petition has contended in the first instance that appeal has been rightly rejected on the ground that it has not complied with the order of the Administrative Tribunal with regard to the furnishing of the bank guarantee and as modified by this Court in the earlier writ petition. It is next urged that the petitioner took indulgence from this Court which directed petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and furnish personal security for the balance amount. It was, therefore, urged that no more latitude can be shown to a litigant of this kind. Large number of authorities have been relied upon to suggest that entertaining appeals without the pre-requisite of the deposit of tax or as directed by the Tribunal or the court would run counter to the very provision of section 27 of the Goa Sales Tax Act, 1964. If the petitioner wants his appeal to be heard on merits then it is clearly incumbent upon the petitioner to have complied with the order of furnishing bank guarantee and security as directed. 7. If the petitioner wants his appeal to be heard on merits then it is clearly incumbent upon the petitioner to have complied with the order of furnishing bank guarantee and security as directed. 7. Following authorities were relied upon to show as to how the Supreme Court has viewed grant of interim orders which brings about a sort of public mischief and that passing of interim orders is not a charity and they are Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. reported in [1985] 154 ITR 172; AIR 1985 SC 330 and Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P. V. Suresh reported in JT 1993 (5) SC 410. The appeal provision in Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act under the proviso incorporated says that the appeal shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of amount of tax admitted to be due. The Supreme Court in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur reported in [1968] 21 STC 154; AIR 1968 SC 488 held that the payment of challan need not accompany memorandum of appeal and if the proof is shown appeal can still be entertained and decided on merits. In another decision of Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in AIR 1992 SC 2279 the Supreme Court held that appeal can be admitted or entertained but cannot be beard or disposed without pre-deposit of disputed tax and giving time to deposit was held permissible. In Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (dead) through legal representatives reported in AIR 1970 SC 1384 it was held that expression entertain means adjudicate upon or proceed to consider on merits but does not refer to initiation of proceedings. 8. In the matter of excise duty to be included for the purpose of turnover for deciding the liability of tax reliance was placed in the decision of McDowell & Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1977] 39 STC 151 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 1459 and McDowell & Company Limited. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC). 9. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC). 9. As against this Shri Nadkarni says that a Division Bench of this Court in Ebrahim and Company v. State of Bombay reported in [1962] 13 STC 877 has viewed that the person who carries on the business of selling goods is liable to pay sales tax on the aggregate of the amount of sale price received or receivable by him in his capacity as a person carrying on the business minus the deductions allowable therefrom under the provisions of the Act. This was pointed out to show that when customs duty was paid there was no turnover for such amount in the hands of the petitioner and, therefore, tax, if due, could be only on the value of the consideration of the sale of the ship alone. Shri Nadkarni lastly relied upon a decision of Gauhati High Court in Monoranjan Chakraborty v. State of Tripura reported in [1991] 81 STC 291 which held provision of requirement of deposit to be ultra vires insofar as the Tripura Sales Tax Act is concerned. 10. The controversy centres around section 27 of the Act. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 27 reads : "Provided secondly that no appeal shall be entertained by the said authority unless he is satisfied that such amount of the tax as the applicant may admit to be due from him has been paid". 10. The controversy centres around section 27 of the Act. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 27 reads : "Provided secondly that no appeal shall be entertained by the said authority unless he is satisfied that such amount of the tax as the applicant may admit to be due from him has been paid". Sub-section (2B) reads as under : "No appeal under sub-section (2A) or sub-section (3B) shall be entertained by the Tribunal, and no revision application under sub-section (3) shall be entertained by the Commissioner, unless such appeal or revision application, as the case may be, is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of tax or penalty or both that may be due : Provided that the Tribunal or the Commissioner as the case may be, may, if it or he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain any appeal or revision application against any such order without making the payment as aforesaid, if the appellant, or as the case may be, the applicant furnishes such security for such amount as it or he may direct." From the aforementioned provision it is clear that for reasons to be recorded in writing an appeal or revision can be entertained without making the payment of tax or penalty or both if the applicant furnishes security for such amount as the Tribunal may direct. 11. Appeal remedy is a statutory remedy provided under the Act. We have seen the earliest order made by the Tribunal dated April 15, 1992, the operative part of which reads : "Hence, the appeal is admitted and stay granted but subject to the appellant furnishing a security for the sum of the penalty imposed, which shall be in the form of a bank guarantee, within 15 days from the date of commencement of this order". When this order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1992, this Court held that since the appeal had been already admitted and stay was made conditional, the order of the Tribunal was modified. Once the appeal is admitted it is difficult to accept that it can now be allowed to be frustrated without hearing the same on its merits. If the appeal had been admitted subject to the condition of deposit perhaps that would be the end of the, matter but, unfortunately, this is not the case. Once the appeal is admitted it is difficult to accept that it can now be allowed to be frustrated without hearing the same on its merits. If the appeal had been admitted subject to the condition of deposit perhaps that would be the end of the, matter but, unfortunately, this is not the case. In our view the merits raised by the appellant needs consideration, viz., authorities cited. 12. Being so, we accept the present offer made by Shri Nadkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, that he will furnish bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and execute a personal bond for the remaining amount within 4 weeks from today and the Tribunal is directed to hear the Sales Tax Second Appeal No. 1 of 1992 on its merits. Writ accordingly partly succeeds. Rule made absolute as indicated. Writ petition partly allowed.