Statutory appeal cannot be rejected for non-filing of the impugned order where the rules permit a satisfactory explanation.

A statutory appeal under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be rejected merely because the impugned order was not filed with the memorandum when Rule 28(2) read with Form 15 permitted the omission to be explained to the appellate authority's satisfaction. The appellate authority had to consider the appellant's explanation that the order had not been received and that he had acted on the notice served on him; if that explanation was acceptable, dismissal on that technical ground alone was unjustified. The court found that the penalty order had been affixed after refusal of service and held that the appeal should have been entertained and decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be dismissed as defective merely because the memorandum was not accompanied by the order appealed against, when the appellant had offered an explanation for non-production.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Rule 28(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, read with Form 15, require an appeal to be in the prescribed form, and the note to Form 15 states that the appeal should be accompanied by the order appealed against unless the omission is explained to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. The requirement is therefore not absolute. Where the appellant states that he had not received the order and had acted on the notice served on him, the appellate authority must consider that explanation. If the explanation is acceptable, the appeal cannot be rejected on that technical ground alone. On the facts, the record showed that the penalty order had been affixed to the lorry after refusal of service, while the petitioner had come to know of the matter only through the notice served on him.

Conclusion: The authorities were not justified in insisting on production of the penalty order as an inflexible condition and in dismissing the appeal without examining the explanation.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the dismissal of the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be entertained and decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal cannot be rejected for non-filing of the impugned order when the governing rules permit the omission to be explained and the explanation is not shown to be unacceptable.

---