GST Appeal Reinstated: Board Resolution Defect Not Sufficient for Rejection of Appeal

Summary in Key Points:

Issue: Was the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal justified due to alleged defects in the board resolution filed with the appeal memo?
Facts: The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their appeal, arguing that the board resolution was defective. Their rectification application was also rejected.
Decision: Upon reviewing the board resolution, the court found no serious defects that would warrant rejecting the appeal or the rectification application. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

Important Note: This decision clarifies that minor defects in a board resolution should not be a ground for rejecting an appeal. The court’s examination of the resolution suggests that the perceived defects were not substantial enough to prevent the Appellate Authority from understanding the petitioner’s intent and the authorization for filing the appeal. This ruling prevents procedural technicalities from hindering access to appellate remedies and ensures that appeals are decided on their merits rather than on minor, easily rectifiable procedural flaws.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Y. M. Motors (P.) Ltd.

Union of India

M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32594 OF 2024

NOVEMBER 21, 2024

Delphi World Money Ltd. v. The Union of India and others Writ Petition (L) No.28914 of 2024 (para 5).

Manohar Samal, Adv. for the Petitioner. Maya Majumdar and Harshad V. Shingnapurkar, Advs. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner challenges Appeal Order dated 10 April 2024 and Rectification Order dated 20 June 2024 made by the second Respondent rejecting the Petitioner’s Appeal and Rectification Application on the ground that the board resolution filed along with the Appeal memo was defective.

4. We have perused the resolution and we do not agree that there is any serious defect based upon which the Appeal or the Rectification Application could have been rejected.

5. Besides, we have dealt with similar objections made by the same officer rejecting about less than hundred matters on the alleged ground of defective resolutions. In Delphi World Money Ltd. v. The Union of India and others in Writ Petition (L) No.28914 of 2024 decided on 11 November 2024, we have referred to our earlier orders and based upon the same order interfered with the orders made by this officer on almost identical grounds.

6. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in Delphi World Money Ltd. (supra) and also the decisions referred to therein, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the second Respondent for de novo consideration. This time, the second Respondent should decide the matter on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.

7. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. The second Respondent should dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 31 January 2025.

8. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost order.

9. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.