M/S Adama Indian PVT.LTD.Formerly Known As Makhteshim Again INDIA PVT.LTD Lko vs. State Of U.P. Rep. By Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Adama India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of Form DRC 01 dated 15.11.2024 and the subsequent summary of order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 07.02.2025 by the respondent authorities. The petitioner sought to declare these actions void, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. A preliminary objection was raised by the State-respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to a discrepancy in the affidavit filed in its support. The affidavit was filed by Shri Venkat Ram Krishna Hari, who claimed to be the petitioner and pursuing the matter himself, while the writ petition was filed by M/S Adama India Private Limited through its Assistant General Manager, Shri Odela Praveen Kumar.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to a significant discrepancy in the affidavit filed in its support. The affidavit was sworn by an individual who claimed to be the petitioner and was pursuing the matter himself, whereas the writ petition was formally filed by M/S Adama India Private Limited through its Assistant General Manager. This inconsistency raised doubts about the proper representation and locus standi of the deponent. The Court found this discrepancy to be a fatal flaw, preventing it from proceeding to consider the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the GST notices and orders. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition must be supported by a properly constituted affidavit reflecting the true petitioner and their authorized representation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, considering the discrepancy in the affidavit filed in support thereof? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be entertained, implicitly suggesting that the discrepancy in the affidavit was either a minor procedural issue or could be rectified. The respondents, specifically the State-respondents, contended that the discrepancy in the affidavit, where the deponent claimed to be the petitioner despite the petition being filed by a company through its authorized representative, rendered the writ petition not maintainable. They highlighted that the deponent's claim to be pursuing the matter himself contradicted the formal filing by the company.
Sections Cited
DRC 01, DRC 07
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 933 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- "To issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and / or Certiorari declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Form DRC 01 dated 15.11.2024 bearing Ref. No.ZD0911241757909 and consequently passing the summary of Order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 07.02.2025 vide Ref. No.ZD0902250893454 is being void, illegal, without juri iction, arbitrary, without authority of law apart from being in gross violation of principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State – respondents. He has pointed out the array of the parties. Writ petitioner is M/S Adama India Private Limited, through Assistant General Manager Shri Odela Praveen Kumar, however, affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is filed by Shri Venkat Ram Krishna Hari, resident of Andhra Pradesh and the affidavit states that the deponent is the petitioner and is pursuing the matter himself. The discrepancy in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition makes the writ petition not maintainable before this Court. Writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Atul Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.3 is taken on record.
September 16, 2025 mks Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Izhar Ahmad, Jai Prakash Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., A.S.G.I. (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) M/S Adama Indian Pvt.Ltd.Formerly Known As Makhteshim Again India Pvt.Ltd Lko .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Rep. By Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.