https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153466 A statutory appeal under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be rejected merely because the impugned order was not filed with the memorandum when Rule 28(2) read with Form 15 permitted the omission to be explained to the appellate authority's satisfaction. The appellate authority had to consider the appellant's explanation that the order had not been received and that he had acted on the notice served on him; if that explanation was acceptable, dismissal on that technical ground alone was unjustified. The court found that the penalty order had been affixed after refusal of service and held that the appeal should have been entertained and decided on merits. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:58:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153466 A statutory appeal under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be rejected merely because the impugned order was not filed with the memorandum when Rule 28(2) read with Form 15 permitted the omission to be explained to the appellate authority's satisfaction. The appellate authority had to consider the appellant's explanation that the order had not been received and that he had acted on the notice served on him; if that explanation was acceptable, dismissal on that technical ground alone was unjustified. The court found that the penalty order had been affixed after refusal of service and held that the appeal should have been entertained and decided on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 24 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153466