Bombay High Court
Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 October, 2024
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2024:BHC-OS:17958-DB 903- OSWPL-32758.2024-JF.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32758 OF 2024
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd ]
A and B wing, 9th floor, Fulcrum, ]
Building, Sahar Road, Andheri, ]
Mumbai - 400 099. ]...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India, ]
represented by Secretary to, ]
Government, Ministry of Finance, ]
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. ]
]
2. The Commissioner (Appeals-II), ]
3rd Floor, CGST Bhavan, Plot No. C-24, ]
Sector-E, Bandra-Kurla Complex, ]
Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 051. ]
3] Joint Commissioner CGST & C.Ex., ]
AMOL th
PREMNATH Mumbai East, 9 Floor, Lotus ]
JADHAV
Info Centre Station Road, ]
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH Parel (East), Mumbai - 400 012. ]...Respondents
JADHAV
Date: 2024.10.25
18:19:59 +0530 ______________________________________________________
Mr Prasad Paranjape, i/b, Lumiere Law Partner, for the
Petitioner.
Ms Jaymala Ostwal a/w Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 24 October 2024
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2024 00:20:49 :::
903- OSWPL-32758.2024-JF.DOCX
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The Petition challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.
SK/234/Appeals-II/ME/2024-25 by which the Petitioners's
appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on
the ground that the authorised signatory of the Petitioner did
not sign the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that
since no proof, such as a board resolution, was produced, it
could not accept the appeal instituted by the authorised
signatory.
4. Ms Ostwal, learned Counsel for the Respondents,
objected to the entertainment of this Petition on the ground
that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy before the
tribunal. However, she admitted that the tribunal is not
functioning presently. Accordingly, we see no reason not to
entertain this Petition.
5. Besides, in almost identical circumstances, this Court
has entertained and allowed some Petitions where appeals
were rejected because they were not instituted or signed by
the authorised signatories. In most of such matters, we found
that the learned Counsel for the revenue, quite fairly, did not
even oppose the grant of any reliefs.
6. In this regard, we refer to our recent order dated 13
August 2024, read with the order dated 20 August 2024, in
Writ Petition No. 11298 of 2024, which reads as follows: -
903- OSWPL-32758.2024-JF.DOCX
"1. The order dated 29th May 2024 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, he was duty bound to call upon
Appellant, if he had any doubts with regard to the
authority. In this case, in our view, if only the Appellate
Authority had bothered to check the GST portal of
Appellant, he would have found that Akshaya P. Herle was
an authorised signatory.
2. When we brought all these to the notice of Mr.
Mishra, on instructions from the same officer, i.e., Sumit
Kumar, who is present in the Court, Mr. Mishra stated that
the impugned order could be quashed and set aside and
the matter remanded for denovo consideration. Ordered
accordingly.
3. Appellate Authority who will hear this appeal shall
give personal hearing to Appellant, notice whereof shall
be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance. The
order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with
all submissions of Appellant. If the Appellate Authority is
going to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or
Tribunal or any other forum, a list thereof shall be made
available along with the notice for personal hearing. If the
order or a judgment is unreported then a copy thereof
shall also be made available along with the notice. This is
to enable Appellant to deal with/distinguish the judgment
or the order.
903- OSWPL-32758.2024-JF.DOCX
4. The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November
2024.
5. All rights and contentions are kept open to the
parties.
6. We hasten to add that we have not made any
observations on the merits of the matter.
7. Petition disposed."
7. The facts in the present case are also not significantly
different. Proper material has been produced to show that the
signatory on the appeal memo was indeed authorised to sign
the same. In any event, we do not approve of the appellate
authorities adopting such shortcuts and dismissing the
appeals, even without allowing the appellants to either
establish that the signatory was authorised to sign the appeal
memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such
signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such
opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair
play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on
the Court's docket. We were informed that there were about
100 such orders made by this officer dismissing appeals on
hypertechnicalities without giving a fair opportunity to the
appellants.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 31
July 2024 and restore the Petitioner's appeal to the file of the
Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits
and per law. All parties' contentions on merits are left open.
The Commissioner (Appeals) shall grant an opportunity of
hearing to all the parties and pass the reasoned order.
903- OSWPL-32758.2024-JF.DOCX
9. The Commissioner (Appeals) must dispose of the Appeal
as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, on or before 31
January 2025. The order should be communicated to the
parties no sooner than it is made.
10. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any cost of order. All concerned to act on an authenticated
copy of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
