M/S.Siemens LTD. vs. State
Held
The Court held that there was indeed an inadvertent typographical error in the order dated 24.07.2019, and the word 'appeal' should have been 'revision'. The Court found that the petitioner's submission regarding the error was correct. Consequently, the Court directed that the necessary correction be carried out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 24.07.2019. Regarding the second prayer for condonation of delay in filing the revision, the Court extended the time for filing the revision petition by fifteen days. The rest of the previous order remained unaltered.
Facts
The petitioner filed an application before the High Court seeking modification of a previous order dated 24.07.2019 and condonation of delay in filing a revision petition. The petitioner argued that the previous order mistakenly referred to an 'appeal' as the alternative remedy, when it should have been a 'revision'. The revision petition was to be filed before the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Joint Commissioner of CT & GST) Territorial Range, Ganjam, Berhampur. The court noted that the previous order contained a typographical error and that 'revision' was indeed the correct term.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was a typographical error in the High Court's order dated 24.07.2019, where 'appeal' was mentioned instead of 'revision' as the alternative remedy available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the delay in filing the revision petition before the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax should be condoned? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the mention of 'appeal' in the previous order was an inadvertent typographical error and that the correct alternative remedy was 'revision'. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.A. No.12841 of 2019
05.11.2019
This is an application for modification of order dated 24.07.2019 passed by this Court as well as condonation of delay in filing the revision petition before the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Joint Commissioner of CT & GST) Territorial Range, Ganjam, Berhampur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 24.07.2019, at paragraphs 3 and 4 though petitioner had the alternative remedy of revision, however, inadvertently it was written ‘appeal’, whereas it should be ‘revision’.
Perusal of order dated 24.07.2019 reveals that there appears inadvertent typographical error. It should be ‘revision’ instead of ‘appeal’. Accordingly, necessary correction be carried out in paragraphs-3 and 4 of the said order dated 24.07.2019. So far as second prayer made in this I.A. for condonation of delay/extension of time for filing revision is concerned, the time is extended for a fifteen days.
The order dated 24.07.2019 modified to the extent indicated above only. Rest part of the order remains unaltered.
With the order as aforesaid, the IA is disposed of. Is
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.