2024 (9) TMI 540 - HC - GST

Company appeal dismissal overturned despite procedural defects including Board Resolution and signatory issues

Siemens Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

The Bombay HC set aside the dismissal of a company's appeal that was rejected on multiple procedural grounds. The appellate authority had dismissed the ... Dismissal of appeal - failure to submit Board Resolution appointing the Authorized Signatory to sign Appeal documents under Companies Act, 1956 - failure on the part of Authorized Signatory to put her name under her signature - delay in filing of the Appeal of 27 days - payment of pre-deposit vide DRC-03 which is not a correct mode of payment of pre-deposit. Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appeal has not been signed by authorised signatory and appellant has not submitted Board Resolution under the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, petitioner was never called upon to file the same. In a similar matter in TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, [2024 (9) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court had set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. Dismissal of appeal on the ground of non-mentioning of the name of the Authorized Signatory - HELD THAT:- The non-mentioning of the name of the Authorized Signatory is a minor procedural defect. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 never called upon petitioner to rectify the same - In Jem Exporter v. Union of India [2023 (8) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] this Court held that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with the procedure without giving an opportunity to appellant to rectify the procedural defects. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 never issued any defect memo to petitioner. If, respondent No. 2 had only brought this to the notice of petitioner at the time of personal hearing, it would have been cured. Dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeals - HELD THAT:- The petitioner submitted that if only respondent No. 2 had considered the appeal memo, he would have realised that there was actually no delay and the appeal was within time. Petitioner stated that order-in-original dated 25th March 2022 was received via e-mail on 19th April 2022 and that hence, the time to file the appeal expired on 20th June 2022. Admittedly, the appeal was filed on 20th June 2022. If respondent No. 2 had only brought this to the notice of petitioner at the time of personal hearing, it would have been clarified. Petitioner is agreed upon - In a similar matter in BYTEDANCE (INDIA) TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (9) TMI 397 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] this Court had set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. Payment of pre-deposit made through DRC-03 - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra. In Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India [2022 (10) TMI 264 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the assessee had made the pre-deposit through DRC-03 for the filing of an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that pre-deposit made via Form DRC-03 was not proper. Noticing that the issue of pre-deposit was an industrywide issue, this Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes to issue suitable clarification. The appellate orders were quashed and remanded to the appellate authority for de-novo adjudication. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Dismissal of appeal based on lack of Board Resolution appointing Authorized Signatory.2. Dismissal of appeal due to non-mentioning of Authorized Signatory's name.3. Delay in filing the appeal.4. Incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 2 due to the absence of a Board Resolution appointing an Authorized Signatory to sign appeal documents under the Companies Act, 1956. However, the petitioner was not asked to provide this resolution. In a similar case, the Court set aside the order for de novo consideration, emphasizing the importance of verifying the authority of the signatory before dismissal.Issue 2:The dismissal based on the non-mentioning of the Authorized Signatory's name was deemed a minor procedural defect. The Court highlighted that justice should not be denied solely for procedural lapses without giving an opportunity to rectify them. The respondent failed to issue any defect memo or notify the petitioner during the personal hearing, which could have rectified the issue.Issue 3:Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, it was argued that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame despite the misunderstanding of the communication date of the original order. The Court agreed that if the respondent had clarified this during the personal hearing, the misunderstanding could have been resolved. A similar case was remanded for de novo consideration under similar circumstances.Issue 4:The issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03 was discussed, citing precedents and circulars. The Court referred to a case where the Circular dated 28th October 2022 clarified that pre-deposit via DRC-03 was improper. It was noted that the circular applied prospectively, and the appeal was dismissed based on this ground. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, rectifying minor defects, and providing opportunities to address issues before dismissing appeals. The Court's decisions were guided by principles of natural justice and adherence to legal procedures, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the parties involved.