2024 (10) TMI 1454 - HC - GST

Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the authorised signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the same - HELD THAT - Proper material has been produced to show that the signatory on the appeal memo was indeed authorised to sign the same. In any event, we do not approve of the appellate authorities adopting such shortcuts and dismissing the appeals, even without allowing the appellants to either establish that the signatory was authorised to sign the appeal memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on the Court s docket. The impugned order dated 31 July 2024 is set aside - the Petitioner s appeal restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits and per law - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal due to lack of authorized signatory's signature and board resolution.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the absence of the authorized signatory's signature. The Commissioner reasoned that without proof, such as a board resolution, the appeal could not be accepted. The Respondent's counsel objected to the petition citing an alternate remedy before the tribunal, which was not functioning at the time. The Court decided to entertain the petition based on similar past cases where appeals were rejected for the same reason, and relief was granted without opposition from the revenue's counsel.

In a related matter, the Court referred to a previous order where an appeal was dismissed for the same reason. The Court found that the Appellate Authority failed to verify the authority of the signatory properly. Upon bringing this to the notice of the concerned officer, the order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and providing a fair opportunity to appellants to establish the signatory's authorization.

The Court observed that proper material was presented in the present case to prove the signatory's authorization. It criticized the appellate authorities for dismissing appeals without allowing appellants to establish the signatory's authority, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits and as per the law, granting all parties a fair hearing and passing a reasoned order.

Furthermore, the Court instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, no later than 31 January 2025, ensuring timely communication of the order to the parties. The Rule was made absolute without any costs, and all concerned parties were directed to act upon an authenticated copy of the order.