Commissioner Of Central Tax,CGST And Central Excise,Howrah Commissionerate vs. Mihir Sen Barman And Ors.

Facts

This matter was listed before the High Court at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who pointed out typographical errors in the Court's order dated 12.06.2025, which had disposed of the writ petition. The errors were identified as the word 'petitioner' appearing instead of 'respondents' in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order. Additionally, in paragraph 17, 'Rule 15' was incorrectly mentioned instead of 'sub-Rule 15'. The petitioner sought correction of these inadvertent mistakes.

Held

The Court found that the typographical errors pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner were indeed apparent. The Court held that the word 'petitioner' appearing in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 12.06.2025 should be read as 'respondents'. Furthermore, the Court held that in paragraph 17 of the order, 'Rule 15' should be read as 'sub-Rule 15'. The Court directed that the order stands modified to incorporate these corrections. The ratio decidendi is that courts have the power to correct clerical or typographical errors in their judgments to ensure accuracy and prevent misinterpretation, provided the corrections are apparent and do not alter the substantive decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court's order dated 12.06.2025 contains typographical errors requiring correction, specifically regarding the substitution of 'petitioner' for 'respondents' in paragraphs 4 and 5. 2. Whether paragraph 17 of the Court's order incorrectly states 'Rule 15' when it should have stated 'sub-Rule 15'. The petitioner argued that the errors were apparent and needed correction to accurately reflect the intended disposition. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding these typographical errors, but their counsel was present and presumably agreed to the corrections.