C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was assessed to sugarcane purchase tax and a demand notice by the assessing authority was served on 12-5-1975. On 2nd June, 1975, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sugarcane Commissioner. This was done by sending a letter to that officer signed by one of the partners of the firm, and accompanied by two copies of the memorandum of appeal. It appears that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by any of the partners of the firm. When the appellate authority took up the matter, it dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was defective inasmuch as the memorandum of appeal had been signed by any of the partners of the firm. Section 3 (5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 confers a right to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Rule 24 of the rules framed under the Act sets out the procedure for presenting the appeal. It lays down that the appeal should be prepared by resenting the memorandum of appeal in duplicate to the appellate authority and contains the date to be set out, in Rule 24 (2) thereof. This rule does not indicate that the memorandum of appeal should contain the signatures of the appellant. This, however, does not mean that the appeal which is presented should not be signed, as in case the memorandum does not contain any signature, there will be no surety as to whether an appeal has been filed by the person indicated in the memorandum of appeal. However, in the present case, the appeal was sent with a covering letter indicating the assessee's intention to file an appeal against the assessment order and that letter was signed by one of the partners. In such a situation, the appellate authority was in error in rejecting the appeal on the technical ground that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the appellant. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the assessee wanted to make good the defect at the stage of hearing, but this was refused by the appellate authority. Irrespective of the fact as to whether such a request was made by the assessee, as the covering letter was sent under the signature of one of the partners, the appellate authority on noticing the defect in the memorandum of appeal should have called upon the assessee to make good that defect, as in the circumstances of the case it was of a formal nature. We accordingly allow the petition, and quash the appellate order and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh. It will be open to the petitioner to sign the memorandum of appeal. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.;