2024 (11) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel for the parties. 3. This Petition is impugning an Order-in-Appeal dated 20.06.2024 (issued on 03.07.2024) passed by the Respondent No. 2. By the said Order-in-Appeal, the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the following alleged grounds: (i) That the Petitioner has not submitted any valid proof regarding payment of the mandatory pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount as required under Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) That the Petitioner has not submitted any valid documents, such as Board Resolution, to establish that he is the authorised signatory to sign the appeals under the Companies Act, 1956. 4. The first ground on which the appeal has been dismissed is that the payment of the pre-depos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d prove the payments made by them. 7. In a similar matter in Writ Petition (L) No. 23724 of 2024 in Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India, this Court had, by an order dated 27th August 2024, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: - "1. Petitioner is impugning an order-in-original dated 6th May 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the limitation provided and there was no application for condonation of delay and the amount of pre-deposit has also not been made. .... 3. On the amount of pre-deposit, there is enough....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been impugned on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the appeal has been dismissed on the basis that the appeal has not been signed by authorised signatory and the Appellant has not submitted Board Resolution under the Companies Act, 1956, appointing the said person as authorised signatory to sign the appeals, documents or any other proof of his being authorised signatory of Appellant. Appeal has been signed and verified by one Akshaya P. Herle. We find in the impugned order the Appellate Authority admits that an affidavit has been signed and verified by the same Akshaya P. Herle reiterating the arguments made during the personal hearing. In our view, if the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Akshaya P. Herle,....