Bombay High Court
Beico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly ... vs The Union Of India And Ors on 4 August, 2022
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
spm 1 8-Wp-4246-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2022
Beico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly
Known As Beico Electrical Insulation Pvt. Ltd.) .....Petitioner
V/s.
The Union Of India and Ors. .....Respondents
Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/by PDS Legal for Petitioner.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents.
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE : 4th AUGUST, 2022. P.C.:-
1. In the Affidavit-in-Reply there are references to four letters in para 18 collectively marked as Exh-M. Para 18 refers to letters dated 11 th September, 2014, 18th August, 2016, 13th September, 2017 and 5th December, 2018. Letter dated 18th August, 2016 is not annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply at Exh-M. The Affidavit-in-Reply at Exh-M contains only three letters. This makes us wonder whether the affiant, Commissioner of GST Mr. Avinash Thete has read the Affidavit carefully and check if the documents are properly annexed. Moreover, the Notary Public has not even put his rubber stamp on each page of the annexures. So it is not clear whether the annexures formed part of the Affidavit when it was notarised or was added later. We only hope such senior officers realise that an Affidavit is a statement on oath and they cannot treat it in such a cavalier manner. A repetition of this will not be taken kindly.
1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2022 22:45:07 :::
spm 2 8-Wp-4246-2022.doc
2. Further, the documents forming part of Exh-M are letters addressed by Petitioner to Respondents giving status of Respondents' Appeals before CESTAT. From these letters it appears Respondents were inquiring with Petitioner about the status of Respondents' own Appeals which only indicates bureaucratic inertia. If Respondents wanted to know status of their Appeals in CESTAT, we would have expected Respondents to have checked with the CESTAT registry themselves than asking Petitioner to find out and let them know. What we find rather strange is Respondents have not produced the letters they have written to Petitioner.
3. Respondents are directed to file an Affidavit producing the missing letter dated 18th August, 2016 and also Respondents' letters referred to in the letter at Exh-M to the Affidavit-in-Reply. The Affidavit to be filed by the same Avinash Thete and will be affirmed before High Court Associate and not notarised and copy served within one week from today.
4. Stand over to 17th August, 2022.
(A. S. DOCTOR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2022 22:45:07 :::