Goa University, Thr. Its Registrar Vishnu Sakharam Nadkarni vs. Joint Commissioner Of CGST, Goa Commissionerate And 2 Ors

Facts

This matter concerns a speaking to the minutes of a judgment and order dated April 15, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 723/2024 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner is Goa University, through its Registrar, Mr. Vishnu Sakharam Nadkarni. The respondents are the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Goa Commissionerate, and others. The present order addresses an omission in the operative part of the original judgment, specifically the need to add a consequential direction allowing the Writ Petition No. 723 of 2024 in terms of prayer clause (da). This order is to be treated as an integral part of the original judgment.

Held

The Court held that the operative part of its judgment and order dated April 15, 2025, required correction to include a specific consequential direction. The Court found that the portion stating, “Consequently, the Writ Petition No.723 of 2024 is also allowed in terms of prayer clause (da),” had remained to be added. The reasoning was to ensure the judgment accurately reflected the Court's decision and provided the complete relief intended for the petitioner. The Court directed that this omitted portion be added to the operative part of the original judgment. The judgment and order were corrected accordingly, and this order was to be treated as part of the original judgment and order dated April 15, 2025. The specific grounds for allowing the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (da) are not detailed in this speaking order, as it focuses solely on the procedural correction.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court, as indicated by the speaking to the minutes, is the correction of the operative part of a prior judgment. Specifically, the Court needed to address the omission of a consequential direction. The original judgment, dated April 15, 2025, had been delivered, but a crucial part of the operative directions was not included. The petitioner, Goa University, sought this correction to formally record the allowance of its Writ Petition No. 723 of 2024 in terms of prayer clause (da). The respondents, the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others, were represented, but their arguments or stance on this specific procedural correction are not detailed in this speaking order. The Court's task was to ensure the judgment accurately reflected its intended outcome by incorporating the omitted operative direction.