Commissioner Of Central Tax Haldia CGST And Central Excise Commissionerate vs. M/S Munjoh Resorts PVT LTD And Ors

Held

The Court accepted the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents regarding the typographical errors in the judgment dated November 29, 2022. The Court directed that the following corrections be carried out: the name of the learned advocate for the respondents should be "Satyaprem Majumder" instead of "Satyam Majumdar"; the service tax demanded should be Rs. 87,93,864/-, and penalties should be for a total sum of Rs. 89,13,864/- instead of the previously stated Rs. 87,93,864/- for both; and the reference to "CBDT Circular" should be corrected to "CBE&C Circular". These corrections are to be incorporated into the original judgment, and the corrected order will form part of the judgment and order dated November 29, 2022. No new legal principles were decided; this was a procedural correction.

Facts

This matter concerns a correction to a previous judgment dated November 29, 2022. The respondents, M/s. Munjoh Resorts Private Limited & Ors., through their learned advocate, pointed out typographical errors in the original judgment. These errors pertained to the correct spelling of the advocate's name for the respondents, the breakdown of service tax demand and penalties, and the reference to a circular. The appellant is the Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate. The corrections sought relate to the amounts demanded and penalties imposed, and the correct authority issuing a circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether the name of the learned advocate for the respondents was correctly recorded in the judgment dated November 29, 2022, and if not, what is the correct name? (Procedural/Clerical Issue) 2. Whether the figures for service tax demand and penalties were accurately stated in the judgment, and if not, what are the correct figures? (Factual/Clerical Issue) 3. Whether the reference to "CBDT Circular" was correct, or if it should have been "CBE&C Circular"? (Factual/Clerical Issue) Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: No arguments are recorded for the appellant regarding these specific corrections. Revenue/State (Respondents): The respondents argued that typographical errors occurred in the judgment concerning the advocate's name, the service tax and penalty amounts, and the designation of the circular.