Dismissed¶¶26

The Assistant Commissioner GST and CEx Division VI Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2025RPW/30/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court review petition dismissed without costs (25 August 2025; Sonak & Jain JJ.) — Review Petition No. 30 of 2025 in WP 3015 of 2021; no error apparent on face of record; condonation of one-day delay in settlement-scheme payment due to technical glitch in payment system; GST/Central Excise, Division VI, Mumbai Central Commissionerate; Cradle Runways Pvt Ltd; M/s. Yashi Construction (2022 SCC OnLine SC 723) distinguished — financial constraints there, technical glitch here; communication dated 11 September 2021 re cumbersome procedure and correct challans; review petition not an appeal in disguise; re-argument barred.

What did the court decide?

None — the Review Petition was dismissed without any order for costs. ¶¶26

The Assistant Commissioner GST and CEx Division VI Mumbai Central Commissionerate vs Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the Review Petition was dismissed without any order for costs.

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction against the earlier relief granted to the original Petitioner despite payment under the settlement scheme made after the last date. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

There is no case made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction; the technical-glitch argument was duly considered and relief had been granted only upon satisfaction that a technical glitch prevented payment of the entire settlement amount on or before the last date, though the amount was paid the very next day.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

M/s. Yashi Construction was correctly distinguished: in that matter the assessees failed to pay on the last date due to financial constraints, whereas here the assesses could not pay due to a technical glitch in the system through which payment was to be effected.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The original Petitioners' communication of 11 September 2021 did refer to the cumbersome procedure and the difficulties in obtaining the correct challans under which payments would have been made.ratio¶¶24
A matter cannot be re-argued by instituting a Review Petition in this manner; a review petition is not an appeal in disguise.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (OO CJ), Coram M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ., 25 August 2025 — Review Petition No. 30 of 2025 in W.P. No. 3015 of 2021 (Assistant Commissioner GST and C. Ex., Division VI, Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Cradle Runways Pvt Ltd): Dismissed without costs. Held: (i) no error apparent on the face of the record warranted review — the technical-glitch contention had been duly considered, and relief was granted in the writ petition only because a glitch prevented payment of the entire settlement amount by the last date, payment having been made the very next day; (ii) the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India and Ors (2022 SCC OnLine SC 723) was distinguished, since there non-payment stemmed from financial constraints, not a technical glitch in the payment system; (iii) the original Petitioners' communication dated 11 September 2021 referred to the cumbersome procedure and difficulty in obtaining correct challans; (iv) a matter cannot be re-argued through a review petition — a review petition is not an appeal in disguise.

¶1

23-RPW-30-25+FM.DOCX

¶2

Sayali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 30 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2021

¶6

The Assistant Commissioner GST and C. Ex. Division VI Mumbai Central Commissionerate …Review Petitioner (Org. Respondent No.5)

¶7

Versus Cradle Runways Pvt Ltd …Respondent (Org. Petitioner)

¶8

Mr Jitendra B. Mishra with Abhishek Mishra, Rupesh Dubey, for Petitioner in RPW.

¶9

Mr Bharat Raichandani, through VC. with Dhanistha Kawale, UBR Legal Advocates for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 25 August 2025

¶11

PC:-

¶12

Heard Mr. Mishra for the Review Petitioner and Mr. Raichandani (on video conference) for the Respondents (original Petitioners) in WP No. 3015/2021.

¶13

Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argues that this was not a case of any technical glitch, and no complaint regarding any technical glitches was made by the original Petitioners in their communication dated 11

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

23-RPW-30-25+FM.DOCX

¶16

September 2021. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India and Ors¹ , he contends that even a single day’s delay in making payment under the settlement scheme could not have been condoned. He further submits that since this aspect was not properly considered, there is an apparent error on the face of the record, which warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction.

¶17

Mr. Raichandani submits that there is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record. He pointed out that the argument about a technical glitch was duly considered by this Court, and a review cannot be converted into a disguised Appeal. He therefore urges the dismissal of this Review Petition.

¶18

We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that there is no case made out for the exercise of our review jurisdiction. The argument about a technical glitch was duly considered, and only upon being satisfied that there was a technical glitch which prevented the original Petitioner from paying the entire settlement amount on or before the last date, relief was granted to the original Petitioner, even though the amount was paid on the very next day.

¶19

The decision in the case of M/s. Yashi Construction (supra) was distinguished because the material on record in

¶20

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 723

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

23-RPW-30-25+FM.DOCX

¶23

the said matter indicated that the Assesses failed to pay the amount on the last date due to financial constraints. M/s. Yashi Construction (supra) was not a case where the assesses could not pay the amount due to a technical glitch in the system through which the payment was to be effected.

¶24

Even the communication of 11 September 2021 specifically refers to the cumbersome procedure and the difficulties in obtaining the correct challans under which payments would have been made.

¶25

The matter cannot be re-argued by instituting a Review Petition in this manner. A review petition is not an appeal in disguise.

¶26

Accordingly, we dismiss this Review Petition without any order for costs.

¶27

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶28

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶29

Page 3 of 3

The Assistant Commissioner GST and CEx Division VI Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Commissioner GST and CEx Division VI Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gramastha Mandal Kundevahal Thr Panchpudhari Sharad Bama Bhoir and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lokmanya Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manik Katya Katu Mhatre vs the Competant Authority and Sub Divisional Officer Vasai

Supriya Lifescience Limited vs Union of India

Hikal Limited vs Union of India

Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Limited vs Union of India