Md. Raju , Proprietor Of M/S M.R, Traders vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court allowed the application for rectification of the typographical mistakes in its order dated June 30, 2022. The Court directed that the corrections be made as sought by the petitioner, specifically amending "Principal Commissioner" to "Assistant Commissioner" in two places, "respondent No.2" to "respondent No.4", and "17th December, 2020" to "17th December, 2021". The Court further directed the department to take necessary steps to implement the corrected order. Additionally, the Court extended the time for compliance with the order dated June 30, 2022, by another three weeks. The application being CAN 1 of 2022 was disposed of by this order.
Facts
This matter concerns an application for rectification of typographical errors in a previous order of the High Court dated June 30, 2022, concerning a writ petition (WPA 11928 of 2022) filed by Md. Raju against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought to correct specific errors in the previous order, including the designation of an authority from "Principal Commissioner" to "Assistant Commissioner" in two instances, a respondent number from "respondent No.2" to "respondent No.4", and a date from "17th December, 2020" to "17th December, 2021". The application was filed under CAN 1/2022.
Key Issues
1. Whether the typographical errors in the High Court's order dated June 30, 2022, as identified by the petitioner, should be rectified. The petitioner argued for the correction of specific inaccuracies in the designation of authorities, respondent numbers, and dates to accurately reflect the intended order. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments against the rectification, but the department was directed to comply with the corrected order. The core issue revolved around ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the court's previous directive.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 11928 of 2022 sl. 8 With CAN 1/2022 Md. Raju Vs Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Sweta Mukherje, Mr. Arup Sarkar … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the CGST Authority.
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh … For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
This is an application for rectification of typographical mistake in the order of this Court dated 30th June, 2022 where in the 4th line of 2nd paragraph in stead of “Assistant Commissioner” it has been recorded as “Principal Commissioner” and in 2nd line of 3rd paragraph in stead of “Assistant Commissioner” it has been recorded as “Principal Commissioner” and in 4th line of the same paragraph in stead of “respondent No.4”, it has been recorded as “respondent No.2” and in the 5th line of the same paragraph in stead of “representation dated 17th December, 2021” it has been re
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.