2025 (4) TMI 551 - HC - GST

Dismissal of petitioner s appeal on the ground that the authorized 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 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 July 2024 is set aside and the Petitioner s Appeal restored to the file of Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on its own merits and as per law.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, presided by Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, addressed a petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by Respondent No.2 due to the absence of a signature from an authorized signatory. The court noted that the appeal was dismissed because no proof, such as a board resolution, was provided to validate the signatory's authority. The court referenced previous similar cases where appeals were rejected for the same reason but later entertained by the court.The court observed that the petitioner had provided adequate material to demonstrate the signatory's authorization. It emphasized that Respondent No.2 should have notified the petitioner of any objections, as failure to do so contravenes the principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order dated 30th July 2024, restoring the petitioner's appeal for reconsideration by Respondent No.2 on its merits and in accordance with the law.The court instructed Respondent No.2 to provide a hearing opportunity to all parties and issue a reasoned order by 30th June 2025. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs, and the decision will be digitally signed and communicated electronically.