Former director lacked authority to pursue appeal for struck-off company; assessment challenge also failed on the facts.

A former director could not maintain an assessment appeal on behalf of a struck-off company without demonstrated authority, including a board resolution or valid power of attorney. The Tribunal held that the former director had no continuing right to prosecute the merits of the appeal merely by virtue of past office. On the jurisdictional objection, the assessment made after the company's strike-off was not treated as void on the facts presented, because the appellant did not establish a valid representative capacity or a legally effective continuation of the proceedings against a surviving person. The maintainability objection and the challenge to the assessment were both rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal filed by the former director on behalf of the erstwhile company was maintainable. (ii) Whether the assessment order passed after the company's name had been struck off from the register was void for being made against a non-existent entity.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed by the former director on behalf of the erstwhile company was maintainable.

Analysis: The former director had stated before the Dispute Resolution Panel that, after removal of the company from the register, he no longer had authority to respond to tax notices. The appeal record nevertheless showed filing through him as ex-director, without any material showing a resolution authorising him to institute the appeal or a valid power of attorney in favour of counsel. The provisions dealing with legal representatives, representative assessees, agents, succession, discontinued business, liquidation, and recovery did not confer a right on a former director to prosecute the merits of an assessment appeal in the absence of authority.

Conclusion: The appeal on behalf of the erstwhile company through the former director was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order passed after the company's name had been struck off from the register was void for being made against a non-existent entity.

Analysis: The company's name was removed from the register under the Mauritius Companies Act, 2001 during the pendency of the proceedings. Although the Tribunal noted the settled principle that an assessment on a non-existent entity is ordinarily a nullity, it distinguished the present facts on the basis that the strike-off was voluntary, the Assessing Officer had not been shown a successor or authorised representative, and the material placed before the tax authorities did not establish that the assessment proceedings had been properly converted into proceedings against a surviving legal person or representative. On that footing, the Tribunal did not accept the challenge to jurisdiction in the manner urged.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not held to be invalid on the ground urged and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: Both the maintainability objection and the jurisdictional challenge were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A former director cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of a struck-off company without demonstrated authority, and a jurisdictional challenge to an assessment on a dissolved company will not succeed on these facts where the appellant fails to establish a valid representative capacity or legal continuation for the appeal.

---