Proper authorisation and signature are required for an appeal; unauthorised filing renders it not maintainable.

An appeal must be instituted by the authorised officer with a valid signature and supporting proof of competence; otherwise it is procedurally defective and cannot be entertained. Where the appeal memo was only attested by a Superintendent, while the named filer did not sign it and no authorisation order from the competent authority was produced, the filing was treated as unauthorised. On that basis, the Revenue's appeal was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable when the appeal memo was not signed by the officer shown as filing the appeal and no authorisation from the competent authority was produced.

Analysis: The appeal papers bore only attestation of a Superintendent and not the signature of the Deputy Commissioner (Review) whose name appeared as the filer of the appeal. No authorisation order issued by the competent authority was annexed, and the defect was not rebutted. In the absence of a proper signature and supporting authority to institute the appeal, the filing was treated as procedurally defective and incapable of being entertained.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal filed without the signature of the authorised officer and without proof of competent authorisation is not maintainable.

---