Tenacity Security And Anr vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Facts

These three appeals, M.A.T. 1267, 1268, and 1269 of 2023, arise from a common judgment dated April 30, 2024. The appeals are filed by the respective appellants against the Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South & Ors., Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors., and Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South & Ors. The specific orders or actions under challenge and the tax periods are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history leading to these appeals is also not provided. The matters were listed under the caption “To Be Mentioned” for correction of a name in the judgment.

Held

The Court decided to correct a clerical error in its previous judgment dated April 30, 2024. The name of the learned advocate for the appellant in M.A.T. 1268 of 2023, which was erroneously recorded as ‘Ms. Sangita Saba Yasmin’, has been directed to be corrected to ‘Ms. Sagufta Saba Yasmin’. This order is to form part of the judgment dated April 30, 2024. No other issues were decided, and no substantive relief or directions were granted or refused in this excerpt. The ratio decidendi, if any, pertains solely to the procedural correction of court records.

Key Issues

The primary issue addressed in this excerpt is a clerical correction to the judgment dated April 30, 2024. Specifically, the name of a learned advocate appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 1268 of 2023 was recorded incorrectly as ‘Ms. Sangita Saba Yasmin’ and needs to be corrected to ‘Ms. Sagufta Saba Yasmin’. No substantive legal issues concerning GST or the merits of the appeals are discussed or decided in this particular excerpt. The excerpt does not record any arguments made by either the appellants or the revenue authorities on any substantive legal points.