2025 (3) TMI 1300 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods with vehicle - Validity of affidavit supporting the writ application - lack of authorization for the deponent to represent all petitioners - HELD THAT - In the writ application there is no averment that Gopal Yadav who is the deponent has been duly authorised by the petitioners to present this writ application in this Court. No document showing authoristion in favour of the deponent has been enclosed. The deponent has claimed in the affidavit that he is Manager-cum-authorised representative of petitioner no.3. He has not stated that he has been authorised by all the petitioners to swear affidavit. This Court further finds that in the affidavit the deponent has not declared that he has gone through the statements made in the writ application or that those statements have been read over and explained to him. The affidavit therefore suffers from several infirmities. It is not in accordance with law and the rules of the Patna High Court. Conclusion - There being no averment either in the writ application or in the affidavit that the deponent Gopal Yadav has been appointed/authorised as legal representative of the writ petitioners to file the present writ application and to swear affidavit on their behalf the writ application as framed would be rendered incompetent. This writ application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

Whether the affidavit supporting the writ application was valid and in compliance with legal requirements.
Whether the writ application was competent given the lack of authorization for the deponent to represent all petitioners.
Whether the seizure of goods and vehicle under the Customs Act was lawful.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to provisional release of the seized goods and vehicle.
Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act was valid.
Whether any coercive action against the petitioners should be restrained pending the writ application.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of the Affidavit and Authorization:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referenced a Full Bench judgment in Dipendra Nath Sarkar vs. State of Bihar, which emphasized the necessity for affidavits to clearly express the deponent's knowledge and belief, and to comply with Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the affidavit did not declare that the deponent, Gopal Yadav, was authorized by all petitioners to file the writ application. It also lacked a statement that he had reviewed the writ application.
Key Evidence and Findings: The affidavit was defective as it did not comply with the procedural requirements and lacked proper authorization.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the Dipendra Nath Sarkar case, concluding that the affidavit was not in accordance with the law.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners argued that similar issues were previously considered technical errors. However, the Court noted the binding precedent was not considered in the earlier case.
Conclusions: The writ application was deemed incompetent due to the defective affidavit and lack of authorization.

Seizure of Goods and Vehicle:

Relevant Legal Framework: The seizure was conducted under Section 110 of the Customs Act for alleged violations of Sections 32, 33, 34, 46, and 47 of the same Act.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioners sought to quash the seizure memo and claimed the goods were perishable.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court did not delve into the merits of the seizure due to the procedural issues with the affidavit.
Conclusions: The issue of seizure was not resolved due to the dismissal of the writ application.

Provisional Release and Summons:

Relevant Legal Framework: The petitioners requested provisional release of goods and challenged the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court did not address these issues substantively due to the procedural deficiencies.
Conclusions: These issues were left unresolved as the application was dismissed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court cited the Full Bench judgment: "The affidavit of Sri N.P. Sinha is also defective because it does not clearly express as to how much is a statement of the knowledge of the deponent and how much is a statement of his belief."
Core Principles Established: Affidavits must clearly express the deponent's knowledge and belief, and proper authorization is essential for filing writ applications.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The writ application was dismissed as withdrawn due to procedural defects, with liberty granted to file a new application with proper authorization and affidavit.

← Previous Next →