Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court dismissed a review petition filed by Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd., which sought to overturn a previous order that required the company to deposit a certain amount before its appeal could be heard. The original order, dated November 28, 2024, had directed the company to pursue its appeal, subject to fulfilling pre-deposit conditions, and had also recorded the company’s commitment to file the appeal within 30 days.
The review petition was challenged on procedural grounds, notably the lack of a proper Advocate’s Certificate as required by the Bombay High Court Rules. The certificate provided by the company’s advocates did not adhere to the prescribed format, failing to explicitly certify the grounds for review as valid. The court emphasized the importance of this certificate in ensuring advocate responsibility for the claims made in the review.
Beyond the procedural defect, the court found no merit in the company’s substantive arguments. The company contended that its advocate’s statement regarding filing an appeal was conditional on the pre-deposit being waived. It also argued that Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circulars exempted certain assessees, including itself, from pre-deposit requirements. The company cited several judicial precedents, including “UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,” “Red Chili International Sales vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr.,” “M/s. Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab,” and “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co.,” to support its claims.
The court rejected these arguments, stating that the cited decisions did not justify a review. It dismissed the company’s claim that its status as a loss-making entity warranted a pre-deposit waiver, asserting that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court could not be invoked solely to avoid pre-deposit obligations. The court reiterated that all contentions had been previously considered and found wanting.
The review petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000, payable to Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. The company was directed to deposit the costs within four weeks and file a compliance affidavit. The court also addressed a complaint by the company’s counsel regarding insufficient hearing time, noting that it disagreed with the claim and had politely requested the counsel to allow the court to proceed with other cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
