Implied liberty to refile departmental appeals after curing defects upheld as within appellate tribunal powers

An appellate tribunal may permit withdrawal of departmental appeals with implied liberty to refile after curing a curable defect, and that course can be supported by its power to pass just and proper orders. Here, the earlier appeals were withdrawn because the sanction order was defective, the department sought to refile after correction, and the withdrawal order was treated as preserving that right because the request was not rejected. The fresh appeals were filed soon after, delay was condoned on the facts, and the challenge to maintainability failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining fresh departmental appeals after the earlier appeals had been withdrawn, and whether it had jurisdiction under the Act to permit withdrawal with an implied liberty to file fresh appeals after curing defects in the sanction order.

Analysis: The earlier appeals had been filed without a proper sanction order and were withdrawn at the department's request so that fresh appeals could be filed after removing the defect. The withdrawal order was treated as impliedly permitting refiling, since the request to reserve that right was not rejected. The fresh appeals were filed shortly thereafter, and the delay was condoned on the facts. Section 63(4)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was held to confer sufficient power on the Tribunal to pass such orders as are just and proper, including permitting withdrawal and refiling after curing the defect.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rightly entertained the fresh appeals and condoned the delay; the challenge to their maintainability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is withdrawn at the appellant's request to enable refiling after curing a curable defect, the withdrawal order may operate as implied permission to file a fresh appeal, and the appellate tribunal may permit such course under its power to pass just and proper orders.

---