M/S RASI NUTRI FOODS,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
What were the facts?
This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order dated July 7, 2023. It corrects the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title of the appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a clerical error in the cause title of the Tribunal's order regarding the name of the appellant's representative.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
order dated 07th July, 2023, in to 921/Chny/2022 and ITA Nos. 888 to 894/Chny/2022, the Appellant’s Representative name mentioned in the cause title is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate instead of Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026