Central Agencies Must Conduct Themselves Within Parameters Of Law: Bombay High Court Imposes Rs. 1 lakh Cost On ED

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. 

SBI General Insurance

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.

Read More: Patna High Court Allows Consideration Of Appeal On Merits Rejected By Appellate Authority Citing Mandatory 10% Pre-Deposit

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 

Click Here To Read Order

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

India News Challenges Rs. 6.15 Crore GST Demand In One SCN For Different FYs: Delhi HC Directs GST Dept To Upload Separate DRC-07s

The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to upload separate…
GST Dept’s Illegal Cash Seizure & Handover to Income Tax Dept Under Section 132A Is Illegal : Kerala High Court

Article 226 Can’t Be Misused to Delay GST Disputes At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the Article 226 of the…
Gujarat High Court Upholds Rs.1.7 Crore Utilised ITC Refund for Patanjali Foods, Rejects Dept.'s Recovery

Gujarat High Court Upholds Rs.1.7 Crore Utilised ITC Refund for Patanjali Foods, Rejects Dept.’s Recovery

In a major relief to Patanjali Foods, the Gujarat High Court has…
Bombay High Court Bail Plea: Alleged Rs. 8,500 Crore GST Scammer Claims DGGI Arrested Him Without Memo

Bombay High Court Bail Plea: Alleged Rs. 8,500 Crore GST Scammer Claims DGGI Arrested Him Without Memo

The alleged Rs. 8500 crores gst scammer files bail application in Bombay…