https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82383 A power of attorney used to institute an appeal must clearly authorise the person signing and prosecuting it on behalf of the company. Here, the tribunal found the appeal incompetent because the power of attorney was defective on its face: the document showed execution by a director in Singapore on 30 April 1992, while the appeal papers were signed by the purported agent on an earlier date of 13 April 1992. The record also did not show that the director had authority to grant a general power of attorney for the company. Non-participation of the company and returned service reinforced the absence of proper representation, so the appeal was treated as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:55:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82383 A power of attorney used to institute an appeal must clearly authorise the person signing and prosecuting it on behalf of the company. Here, the tribunal found the appeal incompetent because the power of attorney was defective on its face: the document showed execution by a director in Singapore on 30 April 1992, while the appeal papers were signed by the purported agent on an earlier date of 13 April 1992. The record also did not show that the director had authority to grant a general power of attorney for the company. Non-participation of the company and returned service reinforced the absence of proper representation, so the appeal was treated as not maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82383