https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154552 Rule 66(5) under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as directory, not mandatory, because its requirement that an appeal be accompanied by certified and true copies served only to facilitate service and speedy disposal. Where the defect is curable before hearing, it does not by itself justify dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the department's appeal for alleged non-compliance was therefore unwarranted, especially as the defect was described as inadvertent and the order did not clearly identify the precise default. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154552 Rule 66(5) under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as directory, not mandatory, because its requirement that an appeal be accompanied by certified and true copies served only to facilitate service and speedy disposal. Where the defect is curable before hearing, it does not by itself justify dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the department's appeal for alleged non-compliance was therefore unwarranted, especially as the defect was described as inadvertent and the order did not clearly identify the precise default. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154552