Writ jurisdiction over expert inspection of seized goods declined where no statutory power and no challenge to seizure existed.

No statutory provision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 or the Rules empowered the Commissioner to appoint experts to inspect seized goods on the petitioners' request, so the refusal could not be treated as without jurisdiction. Because the seizure and detention were not themselves challenged, the writ court declined to use its discretionary jurisdiction to secure expert evidence or pre-empt penalty proceedings. The petitioners were left to raise their objections in the appropriate penalty or assessment proceedings. The request for a writ directing appointment of experts was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should direct appointment of experts to inspect the seized goods when the statutory authority had declined to make such an appointment and no challenge was laid to the seizure or detention.

Analysis: The petitioners sought a writ directing appointment of experts to determine the nature of the seized goods. The Court found no provision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 or the Rules empowering the Commissioner to entertain such an application or to appoint experts as requested. The Commissioner's refusal was therefore not shown to be without jurisdiction. The seizure and detention themselves were not under challenge, and the relief sought was in substance to secure expert evidence and potentially pre-empt penalty or assist release of goods. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction for that purpose, observing that the petitioners could raise their contentions in appropriate penalty or assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The request for a writ directing appointment of experts was rejected, and the writ petition failed.

---