The Bombay High Court has quashed the order rejecting the GST appeals citing non-signing of petition by authorised signatory of SBI General Insurance on the grounds that the approach of commissioner was too hypertechnical.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain did 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.
Background
The Petitioner/assessee has challenged the Order by which the Petitioners’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on the ground that the authorised signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that since no proof, such as a board resolution, was produced, it could not accept the appeal instituted by the authorised signatory.
The department objected to the entertainment of the Petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy before the tribunal. However, it was admitted that the tribunal is not functioning presently.
Besides, in almost identical circumstances, the Court has entertained and allowed some Petitions where appeals were rejected because they were not instituted or signed by the authorised signatories.
Conclusion
The court has held that there were about 100 orders made by this officer dismissing appeals on hyper-technicalities without giving a fair opportunity to the appellants.
The court quashed the order and restored the Petitioner’s appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits and per law.
The court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) shall grant an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and pass the reasoned order.
Case Details
Case Title: SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus UOI
Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No. 32758 Of 2024
Date: 24/10/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Prasad Paranjape
Counsel For Respondent: Jaymala Ostwal
