https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758296 The Bombay HC set aside the dismissal of a company's appeal that was rejected on multiple procedural grounds. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for lack of Board Resolution appointing authorized signatory, failure to mention signatory's name, 27-day delay, and incorrect pre-deposit payment via DRC-03. The HC held these were minor procedural defects that could have been rectified if the authority had issued defect memos or raised concerns during hearings. The court noted the appeal was actually filed within time and referenced similar precedents where dismissals on procedural grounds were overturned. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 20:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758296 The Bombay HC set aside the dismissal of a company's appeal that was rejected on multiple procedural grounds. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for lack of Board Resolution appointing authorized signatory, failure to mention signatory's name, 27-day delay, and incorrect pre-deposit payment via DRC-03. The HC held these were minor procedural defects that could have been rectified if the authority had issued defect memos or raised concerns during hearings. The court noted the appeal was actually filed within time and referenced similar precedents where dismissals on procedural grounds were overturned. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Case-Laws GST Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758296