Authorisation of signatory must be verified before dismissal; matter remanded for fresh hearing and reasoned decision.

Where the appellate authority doubts the competence of the signatory, it must verify the authorisation or seek clarification before rejecting the matter; a mechanical dismissal on that ground is not proper. The record showed that the same person had filed an affidavit and was reflected on the GST portal as an authorised signatory, and the respondent conceded the point. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with a personal hearing and a reasoned order, leaving all contentions open.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeal for want of proof of authorisation of the signatory was sustainable, and whether the matter warranted remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The dismissal was founded on an alleged absence of authorisation, although the record showed that the same person had filed an affidavit and the appellant's GST portal reflected him as an authorised signatory. The Appellate Authority was expected to verify the authority or call upon the appellant to clarify any doubt. In view of the respondent's concession, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was sent back for de novo consideration with a personal hearing and a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal on authorisation grounds succeeded, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition resulted in setting aside of the impugned order and a remand for fresh disposal after hearing the appellant, with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority has doubt about the signatory's competence, it must verify the authorisation rather than dismiss the matter mechanically, and the affected party must be afforded a fair hearing before adverse disposal.

---