Appealable order requirement bars appeal where a communication merely forwards or refers to an underlying decision.

A communication that merely forwards or refers to an underlying decision, without itself determining rights, is not an appealable order. The first communication only conveyed an order said to have been passed by the Collector, and the later communication from the Superintendent for the Collector (Appeals) only confirmed that position; neither had independent appealable character. Since an appeal lies only from a proper appealable order, the purported appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purported appeal lay against the impugned communications, and whether those communications could be treated as appealable orders.

Analysis: The communication dated 18-6-1982 was only a forwarding communication conveying an order said to have been passed by the Collector and was not itself an order determining rights. The subsequent communication from the Superintendent for the Collector (Appeals) merely informed the assessee of that position and likewise did not constitute an appealable order. Since an appeal lies only from a proper appealable order, the purported appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The purported appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A communication that merely conveys or refers to an underlying order, without itself amounting to an appealable order, cannot sustain an appeal.

---