- (1.) Petitioner seeks special leave to appeal to this court against the order dated 7/01/1991, of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing its Writ Petition No. 984 of 1989. We have heard Shri Vijay Hansaria for the petitioner and Shri A. K. Srivastava for the respondents. Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal raises a controversy which could well have been avoided by the Deputy Sugar Commissioner who is the appellate authority under the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, [rules for short). The appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated February 8, 1989 of the Assessing Officer (the Khandsari Inspector) before the Deputy Sugar Commissioner, Western Region, Meerut, respondent 2. The Memorandum of Appeal was rejected in limine on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 24 (3) of the Rules in that Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 7510 of 1991an attested copy of the order appealed against did not accompany the Memorandum of Appeal.
(3.) Rule 24 (3) requires: "24.(3) The Memorandum of Appeal shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the order of assessment of imposing penalty or a notice of demand of interest, i. f any. ";