{"id":51567,"date":"2025-03-01T12:41:29","date_gmt":"2025-03-01T07:11:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/supreme-construction-developers-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2025-03-01T12:49:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-01T07:19:08","slug":"supreme-construction-developers-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/supreme-construction-developers-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Construction &#038; Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra &#038; Anr. (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The petitioner, Supreme Construction &amp; Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a Review Petition against the High Court\u2019s earlier order dated 28 November 2024, Supreme\u00a0Construction\u00a0&amp; Developers (P.) Ltd v. Sate of Maharashtra [2024] 169 taxmann.com 555 (Bom)( HC<strong>)<\/strong>which had relegated the petitioner to file an appeal, subject to fulfilling a 10% pre-deposit requirement. The petitioner sought review, contending that the pre-deposit condition was contrary to CBIC Circulars and that as a loss-making unit, it should have been exempted from such a requirement. The Bombay High Court, rejected the review petition, noting two key issues, first being, Procedural Lapse i.e. The review petition was not accompanied by a valid Advocate\u2019s Certificate as mandated under Chapter IV Rule 23(iii) of the Bombay High Court Rules, which ensures accountability for the grounds raised in the review and second, the Court found that the petitioner merely sought to re-argue the matter without presenting any fresh or valid grounds for review. The arguments regarding CBIC Circulars and financial hardship had already been considered in the original hearing. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to bypass statutory requirements like pre-deposit conditions. The review petition was dismissed with token costs of Rs. 10,000, payable to the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, within four weeks, and the petitioner was directed to file a compliance affidavit. (Review Petition (L) No. 39242 of 2024, dt. 03\/02\/2025)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017<\/p>\n<p>S. 73 : Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts &#8211;  Demands and recovery &#8211; Mere claim of demand being without jurisdiction does not warrant waiver of statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing appeal against GST order- Review \u2013 Maintainability \u2013 Procedural Lapse \u2013 Absence of Proper Advocate\u2019s Certificate \u2013 No new grounds for review \u2013 Review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 10000.  [S.107,  Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 226, Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gst-law","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dpJ","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51567"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51567\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51569,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51567\/revisions\/51569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}