Authorised signatory defects cannot justify dismissal without opportunity to clarify; fresh adjudication and hearing required.

An appeal should not be dismissed solely for want of signature by an authorised signatory where the record already contains a board resolution authorising that person to institute, verify, sign and present proceedings before tax authorities and appellate fora. If the appellate authority had any doubt about the signatory's competence, it should first have sought clarification rather than reject the appeal outright. The dismissal was therefore quashed, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with prior notice, a personal hearing and a reasoned fresh order dealing with the appellant's submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not signed by an authorised signatory was sustainable, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration with a personal hearing.

Analysis: The appellate authority proceeded on an alleged absence of authorisation for the signatory, but the record contained a board resolution authorising the signatory to institute, verify, sign and present proceedings before tax authorities and appellate fora. In such circumstances, if the authority had any doubt about the signatory's competence, it ought to have called upon the appellant to clarify the position before dismissing the appeal. The impugned order therefore could not be sustained. Since the respondent fairly agreed to quashing and remand, the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the appellate authority after granting prior notice and a personal hearing, and by passing a reasoned order dealing with the appellant's submissions.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was quashed and set aside, and the appeal was remanded for de novo adjudication with a personal hearing and a reasoned fresh order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the appellate authority for fresh decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record discloses prima facie authorisation of the signatory, an appeal should not be rejected for want of authority without first affording an opportunity to cure or explain the alleged defect, and a fresh adjudication with personal hearing is required.

---