Disposed¶16

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Bombay HC5 Aug 2025WP/2996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Heena Metal Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, Bombay HC W.P. No. 2996 of 2025 (Sonak & Jain, JJ., 05.08.2025): demand reduced by Appellate Authority from Rs.71,83,778/- to Rs. 1,09,007/- after de novo remand, but reduction not uploaded to electronic liability register owing to claimed system limitation; Court prima facie held substantive rights cannot be defeated by system constraints and the system must fall in line with parties' substantive rights and entitlements; matter adjourned to 11 August 2025 for Respondents to offer practical solutions.

What did the court decide?

Matter posted to 11 August 2025, with the Respondents expected to come up with some practical solutions to the issue raised in the Petition. ¶16

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Matter posted to 11 August 2025, with the Respondents expected to come up with some practical solutions to the issue raised in the Petition.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the electronic liability register must be updated to reflect the Appellate Authority's order reducing the demand, notwithstanding the Respondent Authorities' claim that the system does not permit uploading of the reduced liability.

¶14

Court's answer

Prima facie, the substantive rights of the parties cannot be defeated by stating that the system does not accommodate such alterations.

¶15

Key takeaways

The system must fall in line with the substantive rights and entitlements of the parties.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2025, Heena Metal Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Others, Coram M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ., dated 05 August 2025 (copy corrected as per order dated 25 August 2025). The Petitioner contended that after this Court set aside an earlier order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration, the Appellate Authority substantially allowed the Appeal and reduced the demand from Rs.71,83,778/- to Rs. 1,09,007/-, but the effect of that order was not reflected in the electronic liability register. Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Respondent–Authorities orally informed the Petitioner that the system does not permit uploading of the reduced liability, and that correspondence indicated this was only a systemic issue. Prima facie, the Court observed that the substantive rights of the parties cannot be defeated by stating that the system does not accommodate such alterations, and that the system must fall in line with the substantive rights and entitlements of the parties. The matter was posted to 11 August 2025, with the Respondents expected to come up with practical solutions. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

¶1

10-WP-2996-25 -CORRECTED.DOCX

¶2

Sayali

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2996 OF 2025

¶5

Heena Metal Pvt Ltd …Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others …Respondents

¶6

Mr Prasad Paranjape, and Ms. Radha Halbe , for Petitioner. Ms. Mamta Omle i/b Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma , for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 05 August 2025

¶8

PC:-

¶9

At the request of Ms. Omle, learned Counsel for the Respondents, we place this matter on 11 August 2025.

¶10

The Respondents should come up with some solutions for the problem now presented by the Petitioner in this Petition. It is the Petitioner’s contention that after this Court set aside the order and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration, the Appellate Authority substantially allowed the Appeal and reduced the demand from Rs.71,83,778/- to Rs. 1,09,007/-. However, the

¶11

Page 1 of 2 The order corrected as per order dated 25 August 2025.

¶12

10-WP-2996-25 -CORRECTED.DOCX

¶13

effect of this order was not reflected in the electronic liability register.

¶14

Mr. Paranjape, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, pointed out that the Respondent–Authorities orally informed the Petitioner that the system does not permit uploading of the reduced liability in terms of the Appellate Authority's order. He states that even the correspondence between the parties indicates that this was only a systemic issue and, in principle, there was and there could be no objection to reflecting the correct position in terms of the Appellate Authority's order.

¶15

At least prima facie, we think that the substantive rights of the parties cannot be defeated by stating that the system does not accommodate such alterations. The system must fall in line with the substantive rights and entitlements of the parties.

¶16

Therefore, we post this matter on 11 August 2025 in the hope that the Respondents come up with some practical solutions to the issue now raised in this matter.

¶17

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶18

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶19

Page 2 of 2 The order corrected as per order dated 25 August 2025.

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rangrao Laxman More and Ors. vs Pravinkumar Vasantrao Patil and Anr.

Ajitkumar Jain vs the Official Assignee of Bombay

Rangrao Laxman More and Ors. vs Pravinkumar Vasantrao Patil and Anr.

Pratap Mahadeo Indulkar vs Vijay Mahadeo Indulkar

Power2SME Private Limited vs Commissioner of State Tax Goods And Services Tax Department Maharashtra

Exxon Mobile Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. vs the Joint Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise