2025 (4) TMI 341 - HC - GST

Challenge to dismissal of appeal - authorized signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the appeal - HELD THAT - In almost identical circumstances this Court has entertained and allowed several Petitions where appeals were rejected by the same Officer because they were not instituted or signed by the authorized signatories - Reliance can be placed in Court in ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2024 (8) TMI 1483 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The facts in the present case are also not significantly different. Proper material has been produced to show that the signatory on the Appeal memo was indeed authorized to sign the same. Similarly if Respondent No. 2 had any objections on entertaining any evidence or submissions he should have put the Petitioner to notice. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned Order dated 30th June 2024 set aside and the Petitioner s Appeal restored to file of Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration on its merits and as per law - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

In the case before the Bombay High Court, the Petitioner challenged the dismissal of their appeal by Respondent No. 2, as detailed in Order-in-Appeal No. SK/84/Appeals-II/ME/2024-25 dated 30th June 2024. The dismissal was based on the absence of a signature from an authorized signatory, without any proof such as a board resolution to validate the signatory's authority. The Court noted that similar cases had been entertained and allowed where appeals were rejected under analogous circumstances due to issues with signatory authorization.The Court found that sufficient material existed to prove the signatory's authorization in the present case. It emphasized that Respondent No. 2 should have notified the Petitioner of any objections regarding evidence or submissions, as failing to do so violated principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Order and restored the Petitioner's Appeal for fresh consideration on its merits, instructing Respondent No. 2 to provide a hearing opportunity to all parties and issue a reasoned order. The Court requested the appeal be disposed of by 30th June 2025, with no order as to costs, and made the rule absolute in these terms. The order will be digitally signed and communicated via fax or email.