9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20.06.2024 (issued on 03.07.2024) passed by the Respondent No. 2. By the said Order-in-Appeal, the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the following alleged grounds: (i) That the Petitioner has not submitted any valid proof regarding payment of the mandatory pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount as required under Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) That the Petitioner has not submitted any valid documents, such as Board Resolution, to establish that he is the authorised signatory to sign the appeals under the Companies Act, 1956. 4. The first ground on which the appeal has been dismissed is that the payment of the pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount in terms of Section 107 (6) of the CGST is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2024 in Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India, this Court had, by an order dated 27th August 2024, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: - "1. Petitioner is impugning an order-in-original dated 6th May 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the limitation provided and there was no application for condonation of delay and the amount of pre-deposit has also not been made. .... 3. On the amount of pre-deposit, there is enough evidence annexed to the petition that a sum of Rs. 7,89,09,672/- has been deposited and even the receipt is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been signed by authorised signatory and the Appellant has not submitted Board Resolution under the Companies Act, 1956, appointing the said person as authorised signatory to sign the appeals, documents or any other proof of his being authorised signatory of Appellant. Appeal has been signed and verified by one Akshaya P. Herle. We find in the impugned order the Appellate Authority admits that an affidavit has been signed and verified by the same Akshaya P. Herle reiterating the arguments made during the personal hearing. In our view, if the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Akshaya P. Herle, he was duty bound to call upon Appellant, if he had any doubts with regard to the authority. In this case, in our view, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11297 of 2024), Order dated 21.08.2024 in Heena Metals v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 26025 of 2024), Order dated 13.08.2024 in Tata Consumer Products Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (Writ Petition No. 11298 of 2024), Order dated 22.08.2024 in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 26123 of 2024). 12. In the above-said circumstances, we quash the impugned order and remand it to Respondent No. 2 for de novo consideration. 13. Respondent No. 2 will give the petitioner a personal hearing once again, and notice will be communicated at least five working days in advance. The order to be passed will be a reasoned order dealing with all the Petitioner's submissions. The appeal must be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
