2025 (3) TMI 1317 - HC - GST

Dismissal of appeal on the basis that the Appeal has not been signed by the authorized signatory and the Appellant (the Petitioner herein) has not submitted a Board Resolution appointing the said person as the authorized signatory to sign the Appeals documents or any other proof of her being the authorized signatory of the Appellant - HELD THAT - If the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Ms. Gracie Fernandes it was his duty to call upon the Appellant if he had any doubts with regard to the authority. In fact from the record we find that there is a Board Resolution authorizing Ms. Gracie Fernandes inter alia to institute depose defend compromise appear verify sign affirm and/or present papers applications petitions affidavits and other documents under the applicable laws before the High Court Supreme Court Goods and Services Tax Authorities and Appellate Tribunal Advance Ruling Authorities of the Goods and Services Tax etc. This Board Resolution can be found at Exhibit-H to the Petition. When all this was brought to the notice of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent he fairly stated that the impugned order could be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for a denovo consideration. Conclusion - The Appellate Authority must issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions and provide a list of any relied-upon judgments or orders including unreported ones to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 30th July 2024 is set aside - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, addressed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30th July 2024, issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner contested the dismissal of their appeal on the grounds that it was not signed by an authorized signatory, Ms. Gracie Fernandes, without a supporting Board Resolution. The court found that a Board Resolution authorizing Ms. Fernandes was indeed present, as evidenced in Exhibit-H to the petition.The court held that the Appellate Authority should have verified Ms. Fernandes' authority if there were doubts and acknowledged the Respondent's concession that the impugned order could be quashed. Consequently, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, mandating a personal hearing for the petitioner with a five-day notice. The Appellate Authority must issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions and provide a list of any relied-upon judgments or orders, including unreported ones, to the petitioner.The court directed that the appeal be resolved within 12 weeks, with all rights and contentions reserved for the Appellate Authority's consideration. The rule was made absolute without costs, and the order will be digitally signed for dissemination.