Judgment :- The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short ‘Act’), when visited with a reassessment order dt.9.11.2006, under Sec.12A of the Act, for the assessment period 2002-2003, questioned the same by way of a letter on 14.12.2006. Annexure ‘B’ and not an appeal in the prescribed Form No.15 under Sec.20(4) of the Act R/w Rule 28(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short ‘Rules’), however, enclosing the order of reassessment, the balance sheet and the detailed lists of receipts. The petitioner immediately thereafter did not rectify the defects in the appeal so as to be Act and Rule compliant, but did so by letter dt.4.12.2007. Annexure ‘G’ enclosing:- an affidavit; Form No.15 in duplicate; grounds of appeal of appeal; assessment order of Deputy Commissioner; audited balance sheet and details of receipts and payment particulars, with a request to accept the same. In the affidavit it was specifically stated that until November 2007 there was no communication from the Joint Commissioner (Appeals Officer) regarding hearing and when approached was appraised of the fact that the appeal papers filed were not in the prescribed form No.15. According to the petitioner having responded to the show cause notice dt.1.09.2007 under Sec.29 (1) of the Act, demanding payment of tax for the period 2002-2003 and proposing to initiate recovery proceedings, the defective appeal was rectified. In addition, it is the allegation of the petitioner that the letter dt. 16.12.2006, Annexure ‘F’ of the first respondent addressed to the petitioner calling upon him to comply with the defects in the appeal memorandum, was not received by him and hence could not comply with the requirements, within the statutory period of 20 days contemplated by Rule 28(4)(a) of the Rule. The first respondent by order dt. 12.3.2008, Annexure ‘H’ rejected the appeal as not maintainable on the ground of limitation. Hence this Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned. 3. Sec.20(4) of the Act states that the appeal ‘shall’ be in the prescribed form, and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. While the appeal preferred by the petitioner was neither in the prescribed Form No.15 nor compliant with Rule 28(2) of the Rules. It is true that the petitioner responded to the order of reassessment by a letter dt. Sec.20(4) of the Act states that the appeal ‘shall’ be in the prescribed form, and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. While the appeal preferred by the petitioner was neither in the prescribed Form No.15 nor compliant with Rule 28(2) of the Rules. It is true that the petitioner responded to the order of reassessment by a letter dt. 14.12.2006, Annexure ‘B’ enclosing the required documents, such as assessment orders, audited balance sheet and details of receipts and other particulars for a consideration by the first respondent-Appeals Officer. It is also true that the letter-Annexure ‘B’ did not make out all the grounds of appeal nor a verification as stipulated in Form No.15. Therefore it cannot but be said that though the letter, annexure ‘B’ was not an Appeal in the format prescribed by the Rule, nevertheless, the petitioner did offer a challenge to the said order within the time prescribed. 4. Rule 28(4)(a) stipulates that when an appeal is presented and is defective, not Act and Rules compliant, it is for the Appeal Officer to call upon the appellant to rectify the defects within 20 days from the date of notice. In other words, the Appellate Authority who receives the appeal would have to scrutinize the appeal and if it is not in the prescribed form, has to issue notice to the appellant calling upon him or her to rectify the defects within a period of 20 days therefrom so as to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 5. While it is the specific case of the petitioner that the letter dt. 16.12.2006, Annexure ‘F’ of the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to rectify the defects in the appeal was not received, no material is forthcoming from the first respondent that as a matter of fact, Annexure ‘F’ though served on the petitioner, there was non compliance. 6. In the circumstances, the question for decision making is whether it is the objective of the Court to decide the right of parties or punish them for mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases? 7. In similar though not identical circumstance the Apex Court in State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & anr. 6. In the circumstances, the question for decision making is whether it is the objective of the Court to decide the right of parties or punish them for mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases? 7. In similar though not identical circumstance the Apex Court in State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & anr. (2000) 7 SCC 372 having regard to the use of the word ‘shall’ in Order 41 Rule 3-A Sub Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Code held thus: “The use of the word “shall” in Order 41 Rule 3-A (1) does not foreclose a chance for the appellant to rectify the mistake, either on his own or being pointed out by the Court. The word “shall” in the context need be interpreted as an obligation cast on the appellant. There is no reason to place a more restrictive interpretation on the Sub-rule. The Rule cannot be interpreted very harshly and make the non-compliance punitive to an appellant. It can happen due to some mistake or lapse an appellant may omit to file the application (explaining the delay) along with the appeal.” “Even a vigilant litigant is prone to commit mistake. As the aphorism “to err is human” is more a practical notion of human behaviour than an abstract philosophy, the unintentional lapse on the part of a litigant should not normally cause the doors of the judicature permanently closed before him. The effort of the Court should not be one of finding means to pull down the shutters of adjudicatory jurisdiction before a party who seeks justice, on account of any mistake committed by him, but to see whether it is possible to entertain his grievance if it is genuine.” Again in Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75 the Apex Court held thus: “Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-organized exceptions to this principle are: (i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance; (ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it; (iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; (iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court; and (v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant. Their Lordships having referred to the decision in Kodi Lal v. Ch. Ahmad Hasan AIR 1945 Oudh 200 followed the dictum of Browen, L.J., in Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 which reads thus: “Thus object of courts is to decide the rights of parties and not to punish them for mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights………… Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy.” 8. Applying the aforestated principle to the facts of this case, petitioner though negligent in not rectifying the defects immediately after filing the appeal in the form of letter, Annexure ‘B’, did so only after a period of one year by letter dt.4.12.2007, Annexure ‘G’. 9. The averments in the letter, Annexure ‘B’ throws a challenge to the reassessment order, though the petitioner did not file an appeal memorandum in the prescribed format. The contention of the learned State Counsel that by showing of the petitioner to rectify the defects in the appeal, in the letter Annexure ‘G’, the appeal memorandum admittedly not in the prescribed Form No.15, was justifiably rejected by the order impugned on the premise that an appeal was filed only on 4.12.2007, beyond the period of limitation, cannot be countenanced. I say so because if the letter, Annexure ‘G’ is considered as rectification of the defects in the appeal, Annexure ‘B’ then it is not known as to why the first respondent did not ensure service of the letter dt. 16.12.2006, Annexure ‘F’, on petitioner under Rule 28 (4) (a) to rectify the defects. Had the Appeals Officer served the letter Annexure ‘F’ on the petitioner, perhaps there was justification to contend that the failure to rectify the defects within the statutory period of 20 days, therefrom, the appeal was liable to be rejected. 10. In the result, the order impugned recording a finding that the appeal filed on 04.12.2007, Annexure ‘G’ was beyond the period of limitation and liable to be rejected, is without application of mind, arbitrary and unsustainable. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order Annexure ‘H’ of the second respondent is quashed and the proceedings remitted for consideration afresh and if the second respondent were to observe any further defects in the appeal memorandum pursuant to its rectification by letter dt. 4.12.2007, annexure ‘G’ it is open for the second respondent to issue proper notice calling upon the petitioner to rectify the defects and thereafter to hear the appeal and dispose of the same as if it was filed on 14.12.2006, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited under the head of account ‘004 Sales Tax’, within a fortnight from today.