Tax appeal cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds without hearing; merits must be considered instead.

A tax appeal should not be rejected on a purely technical ground such as non-receipt of certified copies when an effective opportunity of hearing has not been afforded. The High Court held that a hyper-technical approach was inappropriate in proceedings involving financial liability, and that the appellate authority ought to have considered the matter on merits. The order rejecting the appeal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to hear and decide the appeal afresh on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-receipt of certified copies, and whether such rejection called for interference in tax proceedings.

Analysis: The appeal was rejected only on a technical ground relating to non-receipt of certified copies. In tax matters, a hyper-technical approach is not appropriate where financial liability is involved, and an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded before rejecting the appeal. The appellate order, therefore, did not reflect a fair consideration of the matter.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax appeal should not be rejected on a purely technical ground without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, and such matters must be decided on merits rather than by hyper-technical procedural objections.

---