JUDGMENT : 1. This petition seeks direction to execute the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that the order which has been passed by the Tribunal is in favour of the petitioner, but the same is not being carried out. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the Tribunal can execute its order in absence of any express provision giving power to do so. 3. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society and Others laying down the law as follows (page 554 in 113 Comp Cas): 59. It is well-settled that the cardinal principle of interpretation of statute is that courts or Tribunals must be held to possess power to execute their own order. 60. It is also well-settled that a statutory Tribunal which has been conferred with the power to adjudicate a dispute and pass necessary order has also the power to implement its order. Further, the Act which is a self-contained code, even if it has not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to have conferred upon the Tribunal all powers in order to make its order effective. 61. In Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat it has been held as follows: Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim "ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditured id sine qua res ipsa esse non protest" (where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist) (Vide Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edition, page 1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties. 4. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to execute its own order. 5. This being the legal position, the petitioner has remedy to move the Tribunal itself for execution. The petition is disposed of accordingly.