9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1482 - HC - GSTRejection of petitioner's miscellaneous application - only ground on which the order-in-appeal dismissing the petitioner's appeal was passed is that petitioner has not filed the Board Resolution authorising the Director who verified the appeal - HELD THAT - The order-in-appeal dated 22nd March 2024 set aside and matter remanded for de novo consideration. Appellate Authority who will hear this appeal shall give personal hearing to Appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated at least 5 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Appellant. If the Appellate Authority is going to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or Tribunal or any other forum, a list thereof shall be made available along with the notice for personal hearing. If the order or a judgment is unreported then a copy thereof shall also be made available along with the notice. This is to enable Appellant to deal with/distinguish the judgment or the order. The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November 2024.
Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal and rejection of miscellaneous application based on lack of Board Resolution authorizing the Director who verified the appeal. Analysis: The petition was filed challenging an order-in-appeal and rejection of a miscellaneous application due to the absence of a Board Resolution authorizing the Director who verified the appeal. The High Court noted that the petitioner was not asked to provide the Board Resolution before the appeal was dismissed. Referring to a similar case, the Court set aside the order and remanded it for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should have verified the authority of the signatory before dismissing the appeal. The Court directed that the Appellate Authority must provide a personal hearing to the Appellant with advance notice and issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions. The appeal was to be disposed of by a specified date, and all rights and contentions were kept open. In a fair stance, the Respondent's representative acknowledged the lack of sufficient notice for the petition but suggested that the Court dispose of this petition similar to the earlier case. Consequently, the Court set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The directions for the Appellate Authority remained consistent with the previous case, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing, detailed order, and provision of relevant judgments or orders for the Appellant to respond to. The appeal was to be resolved by a specified date, and all rights and contentions were preserved. The Court clarified that it refrained from making any observations on the merits of the case. Ultimately, the order dated 7th May 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. The consistent approach taken by the Court in both cases highlights the importance of due process and proper verification of authority before dismissing appeals based on technical grounds.
|
