Directory filing requirements for appeal copies do not warrant dismissal when the defect is curable before hearing.

Rule 66(5) under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as directory, not mandatory, because its requirement that an appeal be accompanied by certified and true copies served only to facilitate service and speedy disposal. Where the defect is curable before hearing, it does not by itself justify dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the department's appeal for alleged non-compliance was therefore unwarranted, especially as the defect was described as inadvertent and the order did not clearly identify the precise default.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with rule 66(5) of the rules framed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act rendered the appeal liable to dismissal, and whether that requirement was mandatory or merely directory.

Analysis: Rule 66(5) required an appeal under section 10 to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against and three true copies thereof. The purpose of the requirement was to facilitate service of copies and speedy disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal had dismissed the department's appeal for alleged non-compliance, but the order did not clearly state the precise defect. The requirement was held to be analogous to rule 67(2), which had been treated as directory, and it was reasoned that if the defect could be cured before the appeal was heard, the appeal ought not to be dismissed solely on that ground. In the present case, the State Representative had stated that the mistake was inadvertent.

Conclusion: Rule 66(5) is directory and not mandatory, and the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal for the stated defect.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement for filing copies with an appeal, intended to facilitate service and disposal, is directory where the defect is curable before hearing and does not by itself warrant dismissal of the appeal.

---