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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
