M/S Lgw Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Disivion - Ii And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. LGW Limited, filed applications (CAN 1 of 2023) before the High Court seeking rectification of a typographical error in a previous order dated June 19, 2023. The error involved the word 'CESTAT' being mistakenly recorded as 'sales tax' in the 7th line of a new paragraph on page 2 of that order. The petitioner requested this correction to ensure the order accurately reflected the intended reference. The respondent, the CGST authority, was directed to take necessary action.
Held
The Court allowed the application for rectification. It held that the previous order dated June 19, 2023, contained a typographical error where 'CESTAT' was incorrectly recorded as 'sales tax' on page 2. The Court directed that this error be corrected, and the rectified order would be treated as an integral part of the original order dated June 19, 2023. The CGST authority was instructed to take the necessary steps to implement this correction. The applications (CAN 1 of 2023) were disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should allow the application for rectification of a typographical error in its previous order dated June 19, 2023, specifically concerning the substitution of 'sales tax' with 'CESTAT'. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that a simple typographical mistake had occurred in the previous order, where 'CESTAT' was erroneously transcribed as 'sales tax'. They sought to have this corrected to accurately reflect the intended meaning and context of the order. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the CGST authority regarding this application for rectification.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 PB Sl. No.5-7. WPA 12130 of 2023 with With WPA 13253 of 2023 With With With WPA 13689 of 2023 With with M/s. LGW Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division-II, (Presently designated As the Assistant Commissioner, Bidhan- Nagar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Cmmissionerate & Ors. Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Ms. Priyamvada Singh. … For the Petitioner. Mr. U. S. Bhattachrya, Mr. Tapan Bhanja. …..for the CGST authority. This is an application for rectification of typographical mistake in the order dated 19th June, 2023, where in the 7th line of the new paragraph at page 2 of the aforesaid order instead of ‘CESTAT’, it has been recorded as sales tax which may be corrected
2
accordingly and this order shall be treated as part of the order dated 19th June, 2023. Department is to do the needful. All the aforesaid applications being CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 1 of 2023 are dispose
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.