Power-of-attorney signatures and separate appeals under distinct taxing statutes: procedural validity and maintainability clarified.

Rules permitting an appeal memorandum to be signed by the appellant or an authorised agent allow a power-of-attorney holder to sign validly, and a regulation cannot override that procedural permission; the objection based on form and signature therefore fails. Where a consolidated order concerns liabilities arising under two distinct taxing statutes, separate appeals are required for each enactment, and a single composite appeal is not maintainable. The discussion distinguishes appeals governed by different statutes from cases involving one order across different assessment years, and confirms that maintainability depends on the statutory source of the liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal was invalid because it was signed by a power-of-attorney holder and was not in the prescribed form; (ii) whether a single consolidated appeal was maintainable against a consolidated order relating to liability under two different taxing statutes.

Issue (i): whether the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal was invalid because it was signed by a power-of-attorney holder and was not in the prescribed form.

Analysis: The relevant rules required an appeal to be presented in memorandum form, but the prescribed form depended on the nature of the order appealed against. Where the appeal was not against an assessment order, the special form for assessment appeals was not attracted. The rules also permitted the memorandum to be signed by the appellant or by an agent, and an authorised power-of-attorney holder fell within that expression. A regulation requiring personal signature could not override the rules.

Conclusion: The objection based on form and signature was not sustainable, and the appeal was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether a single consolidated appeal was maintainable against a consolidated order relating to liability under two different taxing statutes.

Analysis: Although a single order had been passed, the dispute arose under two distinct statutes. The governing principle was that where liabilities arise under different enactments, separate appeals are required. The earlier authority dealing with a single order for different assessment years did not control a case involving different statutes.

Conclusion: Separate appeals were mandatory, and the Tribunal was correct in treating the single appeal as not maintainable on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The finding rejecting the appeal for want of proper form and signature could not stand, but the requirement of filing separate appeals for the two statutes was upheld, leaving the parties to pursue the matter in the manner directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rules permit signature by an authorised agent, a power-of-attorney holder may validly sign the memorandum of appeal, but a composite appeal is not maintainable when the underlying dispute arises under two distinct taxing statutes and the law contemplates separate appeals for each enactment.

---