M/S Ram Narayan Contractor Through Its Proprietor vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court allowed the application for correction. It found that a typographical error had indeed occurred in the order dated 18.11.2022. The Court directed that the name and address of the authority mentioned in the original order be substituted with the corrected details as proposed by the petitioner. Specifically, "Assistant Commissioner State Tax (A-01), State Goods and Services Tax Department, Vill. Kandeshwari, Opposite Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand" was to be replaced by "Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Sector – 1, Roorkee, District – Haridwar". The office was instructed to carry out the necessary corrections in the order dated 18.11.2022. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts have the power to correct clerical and typographical errors in their own orders to ensure accuracy and reflect the true intent.
Facts
The petitioner, through their counsel, filed an application (MCC No. 1 of 2022) before the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking correction of a typographical error in a previous order dated 18.11.2022. The error pertained to the name and address of the authority mentioned in the said order. The petitioner requested the substitution of "Assistant Commissioner State Tax (A-01), State Goods and Services Tax Department, Vill. Kandeshwari, Opposite Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand" with "Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Sector – I, Roorkee, District – Haridwar". The State of Uttarakhand, represented by the learned Brief Holder, was also present.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should allow the application for correction of a typographical error in its previous order dated 18.11.2022, specifically concerning the name and address of an authority. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a typographical error had crept into the order dated 18.11.2022, and sought its correction by substituting the incorrect address of the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, with the correct one. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the State of Uttarakhand regarding this application for correction. The State was represented, but their contentions on the matter are not detailed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 2881 of 2022 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. This is an application (MCC No. 1 of 2022) for correction of order dated 18.11.2022 wherein a typographical error has crept. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in place of “Assistant Commissioner State Tax (A-01), State Goods and Services Tax Department, Vill. Kandeshwari, Opposite Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand” “Assistant Commisssioner, State Tax Department, Sector – I, Roorkee, District – Haridwar” be substituted. Accordingly, correction application is allowed. Let in the order dated 18.11.2022, in place of “Assistant Commissioner State Tax (A-01), State Goods and Services Tax Department, Vill. Kandeshwari, Opposite Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand” “Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Sector – 1, Roorkee, District – Haridwar” be substituted
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.