M/S. Mecel Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner, Haldia -I Division, Haldia And Ors.
Held
The Court found that there was indeed a typographical mistake in the order dated December 24, 2024. Upon perusal of the order, the Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the phrase "without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders" in paragraph 11 was incorrectly included. The Court directed that the order dated December 24, 2024, should be read with the corrected sentence. The operative part of the decision is that the writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored with all accompanying benefits, as per the corrected order. The rest of the original order remains unchanged. The parties are to act based on the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Mecel Construction, approached the High Court seeking correction of a typographical error in a previous order dated December 24, 2024. The petitioner argued that a specific sentence in paragraph 11 of the said order contained a mistake. The original order had stated, "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the appellate order is quashed. The petitioner’s rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision, without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders." The petitioner sought to have this corrected to read, "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner’s rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision."
Key Issues
1. Whether there is a typographical mistake in paragraph 11 of the order dated December 24, 2024, requiring correction. The petitioner contended that a specific phrase "without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders" was erroneously included and should be deleted. The revenue or CGST Authority did not record any specific arguments against this correction, implying their acquiescence or lack of opposition to the petitioner's prayer for correction.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
04 SM 10.01.2025 WPA 27779 of 2024
M/s. Mecel Construction Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Haldia-I Division, Haldia CGST & Ors.
Mr. Ananda Sen Mr. Sabyasachi Mandal … for the petitioner Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya Mr. Anurag Roy … for the CGST Authority
Mr. Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a typographical mistake in the order dated 24th December, 2024 and he prays for correction of the same. On perusal of the order dated 24th December, 2024, it is revealed that in paragraph 11 instead of “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the appellate order is quashed. The petitioner’s rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision, without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders.” in the order, it should be read as “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner’s rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision.” The other portion of the order dated 24th December, 2024 shall remain the same.
2 The parties shall
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.