INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESOR TO COVIDEN HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 583/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 November 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the errors pointed out by the assessee and issued a corrigendum. The assessment order was quashed as it was passed in the case of a non-existing entity, and the appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee pointed out several inadvertent errors in a previous ITAT order. These included a typographical error in a paragraph, a wrong mention of the appeal decision as 'dismissed' instead of 'allowed', and an incorrect mention of the counsel's name.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correction of errors in a previous ITAT order, including a substantive error regarding the quashing of an assessment order due to the entity's non-existence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

order passed by this tribunal in & 583/Mum/2022 dated 25/08/2023.

2.

In para 21 at page 34 of the order Tribunal had made a typographical error which is reproduced hereunder:

1.

21. This has also been highlighted in detail by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Before us ld. Counsel has also stated various other decisions, however, we are not discussing of these judgments. Thus, the entire

3. We have gone through the said paragraph of the order and find substance in the same and find that there is a typographical error for which this corrigendum is issued and the modified paragraph is as below:-

21.

This has also been highlighted in detail by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Before us ld. Counsel has also stated various other decisions, however, we are not discussing of these judgments. Thus, the entire assessment order has been passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and is hereby quashed.

4.

At para 23 Tribunal had wrongly mentioned the decision as ‘dismissed’ instead of allowed. We are convinced with the submissions made by the assessee is correct and accordingly, we hold that para 23 of the order is to be read as under:-

23.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.

5.

At page 1 of the order Counsel’s name was mentioned wrongly by the Tribunal.

6.

We find that the aforesaid error pointed out by the assessee is correct and we deem it fit to modify as under:-

3.

All other contents of the Tribunal order dated 25/08/2023 shall remain unchanged. This corrigendum shall be read as part and parcel of the earlier Tribunal order dated 25/08/2023.

Order pronounced on 6th November, 2023.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →