JUDGMENT The petitioners have challenged the ex parte dismissal order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal Nos. 1163 and 1164 of 2000 dated September 22, 2006 for the financial year 1994-95 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioners have also challenged the ex parte order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2000 dated September 22, 2006. The miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioners praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeals for 1994-95. On the same day, i.e., on September 22, 2006, the Tribunal also dismissed ex parte, the Second Appeal No. 832 of 2003 dated September 22, 2006 for the period 1995-96 for non-attendance of the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the said order also. On April 13, 2007, against all the orders mentioned hereinabove, restoration application was filed. The Tribunal rejected the restoration application as being beyond time by 12-13 days. The petitioners have challenged the ex parte orders of the Tribunal on diverse grounds. The petitioners have also challenged rule 61(2) as ultra vires and unreasonable insofar as it provides for ex parte dismissal without passing order on merit. The petitioners have relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41. The petitioners have prayed that in the interest of justice, orders of the Tribunal being exhibits E, D and H be set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to hear the second appeals for 1994-95 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and second appeals for 1995-96 under the Central Sales Tax Act on the merits. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. She reiterated that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders being ex parte, may be set aside. She further submitted that the petitioners are willing to deposit the sales tax liability to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs. She submitted that out of the tax liability, a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs will be deposited by April 5, 2009 and rest of the amount will be deposited in five monthly instalments of Rs. 1,20,000 each. The learned counsel states that the first of such instalments will be paid by May 5, 2009 and, thereafter, on fifth of every succeeding month, the remaining instalments will be paid. 4 lakhs will be deposited by April 5, 2009 and rest of the amount will be deposited in five monthly instalments of Rs. 1,20,000 each. The learned counsel states that the first of such instalments will be paid by May 5, 2009 and, thereafter, on fifth of every succeeding month, the remaining instalments will be paid. The learned counsel for the respondents states that an undertaking to the above effect may be obtained from the petitioners before the attachment levied on the bank accounts of the petitioners is lifted. The petitioners have tendered in the court an undertaking dated March 19, 2009 to the above effect. The said undertaking is accepted by us. The petitioners shall abide by the undertaking which we have accepted. After paying the instalments, the petitioners shall obtain necessary Challan and submit it to the assessing officer for verification. In view of the above undertaking, the delay is condoned. The impugned orders which are ex parte are set aside in the interest of justice. The appeals at exhibits D and H are remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration and the Tribunal shall consider the matter in accordance with law and on merits. In view of the undertaking filed by the petitioners, the attachment levied on the petitioner's bank accounts shall be lifted. Needless to say that if the petitioners make any two defaults in payment of instalments, this order shall cease to operate and the impugned orders shall stand revived. The bank accounts of the petitioners shall be then reattached. The petition is disposed of.