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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026