TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal memorandum and ancillary application signed by the advocate instead of the appellant personally complied with the prescribed procedural requirements, and whether the resulting defect rendered the appeal and applications defective.
Analysis: Section 129(6) required an appeal to be in the prescribed form and verified in the manner laid down by the rules. Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 required the appeal memorandum to be signed and verified by the appellant personally, and the same requirement applied to applications made in relation to the appeal. Since both the appeal memorandum and the condonation application were signed by the advocate, the procedural requirement was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The appeal memorandum and the application were defective for want of the appellant's personal signature and verification, and notice was directed to be issued calling upon the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for such defects.
Final Conclusion: The order records a procedural defect in the filing of the appeal and initiates show-cause proceedings rather than finally deciding the appeal on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable rules require an appeal memorandum and connected application to be personally signed and verified by the appellant, filing signed only by the advocate does not satisfy the mandatory procedural requirement and constitutes a defect in maintainability.
TaxTMI 
