M/S. Isc Processors Private Limtied vs. Superintendent , Range-Iv, Burrabazar Division, CGST And Cx, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. ISC Processors Private Limited, filed a writ petition (WPA 10748 of 2026) before the High Court. The present matter was listed at the instance of the petitioner for correction of a typographical error in a previous order dated June 9, 2026. Specifically, the petitioner pointed out that in the 21st line of the 14th paragraph of the said order, the case number "WPA 10744 of 2026" was erroneously recorded instead of the correct case number "WPA 10748 of 2026". The respondents are the Superintendent, Range-IV, Burrabazar Division, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate, and another respondent representing the Union of India, along with the State.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's request for correction of the typographical error. It was held that the word "WPA 10744 of 2026" in the 21st line of the 14th paragraph of the order dated June 9, 2026, should be deleted and substituted with "WPA 10748 of 2026". The Court directed that this order be read conjointly with the previous order dated June 9, 2026, and that the remaining portion of the said order shall remain unaltered. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts have the power to correct clerical and typographical errors in their pronouncements to ensure accuracy and reflect the true intent of the proceedings. No specific issue regarding GST law was decided, as the matter was purely procedural.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should correct a typographical error in its previous order dated June 9, 2026, concerning the case number of the writ petition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a manifest typographical error occurred in the previous order, where "WPA 10744 of 2026" was incorrectly mentioned instead of the correct writ petition number, "WPA 10748 of 2026". They sought the correction to accurately reflect the proceedings before the Court. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the correction of the typographical error. However, their presence and representation indicate their involvement in the proceedings.