Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
This judgment concerns a writ petition filed by Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar before the High Court at Calcutta. The matter appeared in the list for correction of typographical errors in a previous order dated 24th September 2026. The petitioner sought an extension of time to file a comprehensive representation before the concerned respondent. The court noted that the original order had directed the petitioner to file this representation within seven days, but due to the matter being listed for correction, the petitioner requested an extension. The court agreed to extend the period for filing the representation from one week to two weeks from the date of the corrected order.
Held
The Court held that the typographical errors in the order dated 24th September 2026, where 'Respondent no. 3' was consistently replaced by 'respondent no. 1' in various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 9, needed to be corrected. The Court found merit in the petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a comprehensive detailed representation. The reasoning was that the matter had reappeared before the court for corrections, which naturally caused a delay in the petitioner's ability to act on the original order. Therefore, the Court decided to extend the period for filing the representation from the originally stipulated seven days to two weeks from the date of the corrected order. The operative direction was to correct the order and grant the extended period for filing the representation. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
The primary issue before the Court was the correction of typographical errors in a previous order dated 24th September 2026. Specifically, the petitioner pointed out that 'Respondent no. 3' was incorrectly mentioned as 'respondent no. 1' in multiple sub-paragraphs of paragraph 9 of the original order. The petitioner also raised an issue regarding the timeline for filing a comprehensive detailed representation before the concerned respondent, which was initially set at seven days. The petitioner argued that due to the need for correction and the subsequent listing of the matter, the period for filing the representation should be extended. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in this judgment, as it primarily deals with procedural corrections and extensions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12 29.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM
In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A 10299 of 2026
Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar -versus- The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray. Mr. sushant Bagaria. Mr. Subhasis Podder. Ms. Shiwani Shaw.
…For the petitioner.
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya. Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti.
… For the CGST Authority.
The matter has appeared in the list under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ for correction of certain typographical errors which are crept in the order dated 24th September, 2026 are accordingly corrected.
In the third line of sub-para i. of paragraph 9, ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the first line of sub-para ii. of the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the first line of sub-para iii. of the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the first line of sub-para iv. of the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the third and fifth line of sub- para v. of the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the fourth line of sub-para vi. Of the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’. In the first line of sub-para vii. of
2 the same paragraph ‘Respondent no. 3’ shall be read in place and stead of ‘respondent no. 1’.
The petitioner also submits that since there was a direction by this Court for filing a comprehensive detailed representation before the concerned respondent within a period of seven days from date but since the matter has appeared for correction, let the period be further extended from one week to two weeks from date.
The order dated 24th September, 2026 is corrected accordingly. The remaining part of the said order will remain unaltered.
Let this order be read along with the order dated 24th September, 2026. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Smita Das De, J.)
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.