The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of complying with the prescribed format and signing requirements for appeals, as well as the requirement of filing separate appeals when the dispute relates to different statutes.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") holding that a consolidated appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable.

Dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93.

A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice :

The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"), was assessed to extra demand of tax. Appeals were filed before the prescribed first appellate authority along with applications for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed demand. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II) (in short, "the Deputy Commissioner") by one consolidated order directed payment of Rs. 20,500 under the Act and a sum of Rs. 1,300 under the Central Act as against extra demands raised ex parte amounting to Rs. 2,04,151 under the Act and Rs. 13,322 under the Central Act for the relevant assessment year as a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeals. Only one appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal which was numbered as Appeal No. 38/STT/97. The Tribunal held that two appeals were required to be filed as the dispute related to different statutes. It was also noticed that the memorandum of appeal was not in the prescribed format and was not signed by the appellant, but by the power of attorney, which also made the appeal non-maintainable. The appeal was, therefore, rejected allowing the appellant to file fresh appeals separately along with an application for condonation of delay, which was to be considered on merits in accordance with law.

The petitioner's stand in essence is that all the three grounds, on which the appeal was not entertained, are not tenable. According to learned counsel for the Revenue, the appeal was incompetent on each of the ground and, therefore, Tribunal's conclusions are in order.

We shall first take up issues whether power of attorney holder could sign the memorandum of appeal and whether the appeal was in the prescribed format. Tribunal has referred to order 41, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short "the CPC") and held that every appeal has to be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as is appointed in that behalf. Reference was made to rule 3 of order 41 to indicate that where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner prescribed, it may be rejected or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended then and there. Referring to sub-section (4) of section 43 of the Act and rule 26 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (in short, "the Rules"), it was held that the requirement was not fulfilled. Additionally, the appeal was not presented in the requisite format, i.e., form ST-30.

Section 43 deals with appeals and reads as follows :-

"Section 43. Appeals. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any order, not being an order mentioned in section 44 passed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, may appeal to the prescribed authority :

Provided that where an order, not being an order mentioned in section 44 or made under section 47 is passed by the Commissioner, the person aggrieved may appeal therefrom to the Appellate Tribunal.

(2) The Commissioner or any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal by the prescribed authority may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order.

(3) Subject to the provisions of section 62, no appeal shall be entertained unless it is filed within sixty days from the date of service of the order appealed against.

(4) Every appeal filed under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and in the case of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal filed by any person other than the Commissioner, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.

(5) No appeal a