Mahavir Polyfilms PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice, Dept. Of Legal Affairs And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, Mahavir Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated February 16, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on the ground that it was not signed by an authorized signatory and the Appellant had not submitted a Board Resolution under the Companies Act, 1956, to prove the signatory's authority. The appeal was signed by Sundeep Mahendra Kumar Sanghavi. The Petitioner contended that necessary documents authorizing Sundeep M. Sanghavi were tendered at the time of registration. The High Court noted that the Appellate Authority could have verified the signatory's authority by checking the GST portal.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal solely on the basis of the signatory's authority, without undertaking reasonable steps to verify it, such as checking the GST portal, was erroneous. The Court found that if the Appellate Authority had any doubts, it was incumbent upon them to call upon the Appellant to provide further proof. The Court accepted the fair concession made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 16, 2024, was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration. The Appellate Authority was directed to grant a personal hearing to the Appellant, provide at least 5 working days' notice, and issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions. If the Appellate Authority intended to rely on any external judgments, a list and copies of unreported judgments were to be provided with the notice of hearing. The appeal was to be disposed of by November 30, 2024. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of the appeal not being signed by an authorized signatory, without verifying the signatory's authority through available means like the GST portal, was legally sustainable? The Petitioner argued that the necessary documents authorizing the signatory were submitted, and the Appellate Authority had a duty to inquire if there were doubts about the authority, suggesting verification through the GST portal would have confirmed the signatory's status. The Revenue (Union of India & Ors.) did not present arguments against the Petitioner's contention regarding the signatory's authority. However, when the Court brought the issue to the attention of the Revenue's counsel, the counsel fairly conceded that the impugned order could be quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.