Century Textiles And Industries LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Represented By Secretary And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 25, 2024. The primary ground for challenge was that the Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed solely because it was allegedly not signed by an authorized signatory, and the Appellant had not submitted a Board Resolution appointing such a signatory. The appeal was signed by Jitendra Ambre. The Appellate Authority's order noted that an affidavit signed by Jitendra Ambre reiterated the arguments made during the personal hearing. The Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority should have verified Jitendra Ambre's authority, possibly by checking the GST portal, where his authorization would have been evident.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal on the ground of the signatory's authority was not justified without proper verification. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority admitted an affidavit signed by the same individual, Jitendra Ambre, reiterating the arguments. The Court found that if the Appellate Authority had any doubts regarding Jitendra Ambre's authority, they should have called upon the Petitioner to provide proof. The Court further observed that checking the GST portal would have revealed that Jitendra R. Ambre was an authorized signatory. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for denovo consideration. The Appellate Authority was directed to provide a personal hearing to the Petitioner, give at least five working days' notice, and pass a reasoned order dealing with all submissions. The Appellate Authority was also instructed to provide any relied-upon judgments or orders, including copies of unreported ones, along with the notice for the personal hearing. The appeal is to be disposed of by November 30, 2024. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of the appeal not being signed by an authorized signatory, without adequate verification of the signatory's authority, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of the signatory's authority without proper verification. They contended that Jitendra Ambre was indeed an authorized signatory, and this could have been easily ascertained by checking the GST portal. The Petitioner also argued that if the Appellate Authority had doubts, they should have called upon the Petitioner to provide proof of authority. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent (Union of India) did not present arguments against the Petitioner's contentions. Instead, on instructions from the Principal Commissioner, GST, the Respondent conceded that the impugned order could be quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.