Konudula Raghavendra Reddy vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, Konudula Raghavendra Reddy, filed an application before the High Court of Telangana seeking to correct a typographical error in a previous order dated November 24, 2023, passed in W.P. No. 27195 of 2023. The petitioner requested that 'Circular No. 27 of 2015' be replaced with 'Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005' in paragraphs 21, 22, and 24 of the said order. The original writ petition concerned a modification of a compounding amount. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and various GST and Customs authorities, were present. The application was filed under the caption 'For Being Mentioned'.
Held
The Court considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and noted that the respondents had no objection. The Court found that a typographical error had indeed occurred in the order dated November 24, 2023, in W.P. No. 27195 of 2023. The Court directed that in paragraphs 21, 22, and 24 of the said order, the phrase 'Circular No. 27 of 2015 dated 23.10.2015' shall be replaced with 'Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005'. The corrected order is to be read conjointly with the original order dated November 24, 2023. The Court allowed the application for correction.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was a typographical error in the High Court's order dated November 24, 2023, in W.P. No. 27195 of 2023 regarding the reference to a circular or rules? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that a typographical error occurred in paragraphs 21, 22, and 24 of the order, where 'Circular No. 27 of 2015' was mistakenly typed instead of 'Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005'. The petitioner sought a correction to reflect the intended reference. Revenue's Contention: The learned senior standing counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, representing the respondents, stated that they had no objection to the correction sought by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed in the context of a substantive legal challenge, but the application refers to the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 337s 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Juri iction) THUR AY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR; JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE I-iONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI Between: Konudula Ra_ghavendra Reddy, S/o K. Ranganatha Reddy, Age about 40 ye-ars, . Occ Business. R/o 35, HUDA Enclive, prashasu6' tta-glr, -.luOriee Hills Hycierabad -50003 3. ..,PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND 1 Unio;r of lndra Mrnrstry of Frnance Departnrent of Revenue, Rep. by its Se-,'ct-r -v *o* [talhr 2. cenrral Board of lncrirect taxes ani customs, Rep by its chairman, Ministry of Finance Nerv Delhi 3 lqcpai Commissioner of CL,sto,r.;:, Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, GST Bhavan L.B Stadium Road Lrash'eer Bagh, Hyderibad -- - - -'-' 4, Cnref Ccmmrssioner.of GS-l ano (.:ustoms, Hyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan, L B Stac.un RoaC. Baslreer Bag;r, Hyderabad.
Ccmmrssroner cf Customs. and Central Excise (Appeals_1). Hvderabad Zone GSi Bhavan L B Sradrum Roa<j basheer Bagti, Hyderab;ij. '-- ---- -- -'
Ad.Jl Co,.nmiss:cner cf Crislo:ns. tlyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan, L,B.Stadium Road. B asheer. Bagh Hyderabao. ,..RESPONDENTS/
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.