Gita Rani Pan vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the order dated August 27, 2026, requires specific corrections. The name of the petitioner in the cause title was to be read as 'Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray' instead of 'Mr. Himangshu Kumar Roy'. Furthermore, the date in the fourth line of paragraph 23 on page 8 was corrected to '08.06.2026' from '08.06.2024'. The Court also directed the insertion of specific phrases into paragraph 25 on page 8: 'and shall be served manually to the legal heirs' after 'shall be issued' in the first line, and 'and shall be served manually' after 'shall issue' in the seventh line. The Court explicitly stated that the remaining parts of the order dated August 27, 2026, would remain unaltered. The operative direction is the correction of the previous order as detailed.

Facts

This matter concerns a correction of an order dated August 27, 2026, issued by the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner, Gita Rani Pan, is represented by Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray. The respondents are the Union of India and others, including the CGST Authority. The corrections pertain to the cause title, specifically the petitioner's name, and dates within the substantive paragraphs of the earlier order. Additionally, directions for manual service to legal heirs and manual service were to be inserted into specific paragraphs. The court is correcting its previous order to reflect these amendments, stating that the remaining parts of the order dated August 27, 2026, will remain unaltered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the name of the petitioner in the cause title should be corrected from 'Mr. Himangshu Kumar Roy' to 'Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray'. 2. Whether the date in the fourth line of paragraph 23 on page 8 should be corrected from '08.06.2024' to '08.06.2026'. 3. Whether the words 'and shall be served manually to the legal heirs' should be inserted in the first line of paragraph 25 on page 8 after the words 'shall be issued'. 4. Whether the words 'and shall be served manually' should be inserted in the seventh line of paragraph 25 on page 8 after the words 'shall issue'. Arguments were presented by Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray for the Petitioner and Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya and Mr. Tapan Bhanja for the CGST Authority. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments made by each side regarding these corrections, but rather proceeds to implement them.