M/S Shree Krishna Traders Through Its Proprietor Sri Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs. The Commissioner (Appeals).Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shree Krishna Traders, through its proprietor Sri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition (W.P.(T) No. 3294 of 2026) before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition was initially disposed of by the Court on 13th May, 2026. However, on 14th May, 2026, the petitioner's counsel brought to the Court's attention an inadvertent error in the previous order. The order was capable of being interpreted as a withdrawal of the petition without granting liberty to pursue an alternate remedy, which was an unintended omission. The Court was moved to correct this error.

Held

The Court acknowledged the inadvertent error in its order dated 13th May, 2026. It was noted that the order, as it stood, could be misinterpreted as allowing the withdrawal of the writ petition without granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue an alternate remedy, which was not the Court's intention. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the sentence regarding liberty to avail of the alternate remedy had been inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the Court decided to correct its previous order. The operative direction was to substitute paragraph no. 2 of the order dated 13th May, 2026, with a revised paragraph that explicitly grants leave and disposes of the petition with liberty as prayed for. The ratio is that High Courts can correct inadvertent errors in their own orders to accurately reflect their judicial intent, especially when such errors lead to misinterpretation of relief granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 13th May, 2026, inadvertently omitted to grant liberty to the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy, thereby misrepresenting the Court's intention to allow withdrawal of the petition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the previous order was capable of being interpreted as a withdrawal without liberty to avail of the alternate remedy, which was an inadvertent error and omission by the Court. They sought correction of this order to reflect the intended grant of liberty. Respondents' contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the alleged error or the correction sought by the petitioner. The respondents were represented by learned Sr. S.C. (GST), Mr. Amit Kumar.