TUMKUR MINERALS PVT. LTD., THR. ITS DIRECTOR, ASHWYN KUMAR R. NAYAK., vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AND 2 ORS.,

PDF · subscribers
WP/1061/2019HC BombayHCBM05004021201907 December 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHARAT P. DESHPANDE2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the corrections proposed in the memo for speaking to the minutes were indeed inadvertent typographical errors that needed to be corrected. The Court found that the proposed changes, such as replacing 'next AY' and 'following AY' with 'AY 2014-2015', and 'AY 2013-14' with 'AY 2014-2015', were necessary for accuracy. Similarly, the deletion of the word 'Senior', the insertion of 'has not', and the substitution of the date '08.08.2012' with '30.09.2012' were deemed appropriate rectifications. The Court directed that these corrections be carried out in the original order and the uploaded version. The memo for speaking to the minutes was disposed of accordingly. No specific issues of law or fact regarding the underlying tax dispute were decided, as the matter was purely procedural.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a Writ Petition filed by Tumkur Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) against the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, and two others (the Respondents). The matter before the Bombay High Court at Goa was a rectification of a previous judgment and order dated December 7, 2022. The Petitioner sought corrections to specific paragraphs of that order, which were described as inadvertent typographical errors. The corrections involved replacing references to 'next AY' and 'following AY' with 'AY 2014-2015', and 'AY 2013-14' with 'AY 2014-2015' in various paragraphs. Additionally, a correction was sought to delete the word 'Senior' before an advocate's name, insert the words 'has not' in a sentence, and substitute a date from '08.08.2012' to '30.09.2012'.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the proposed corrections to the judgment and order dated December 7, 2022, were merely inadvertent typographical errors that should be rectified. The Petitioner argued that these were minor mistakes requiring correction to accurately reflect the intended judgment. The Respondents, represented by Standing Counsel, did not appear to contest the proposed corrections. The Court was asked to consider the nature of the errors and decide if they warranted rectification. The specific questions revolved around the accuracy of dates, assessment years, and descriptive terms within the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

911-WP 1061-19.DOC Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.1061 OF 2019 TUMKUR MINERALS PVT. LTD., THR. ITS DIRECTOR, ASHWYN KUMAR R. NAYAK. … Petitioner Versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AND 2 ORS. …Respondents

Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Respondents. CORAM: M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE,JJ DATED: 13th DECEMBER 2022 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. We have perused the memo for speaking to the minutes and according to us, the corrections proposed are mainly inadvertent typographical errors that need to be corrected. 3. Accordingly, in para 10 of our judgment and order dated 07.12.2022, the following rectifications should be carried out. (i) In the fifth line of paragraph 10, the words 'next AY' – be replaced with the words 'AY 2014-2015'; Page 1 of 2 13th December 2022

911-WP 1061-19.DOC (ii) In the sixth line of paragraph 10, the words 'following AY', be replaced with the words 'AY 2014-2015'; (iii) In the seventh & eighth lines of paragraph 10, the words 'AY 2013-14' be replaced with the words 'AY 2014-2015'.

4.

In the first line of para 6, the word 'Senior' should be deleted. 5. In the third line of para 16, between the words 'AO' and 'disclosed' insert the words 'has not'. 6. In the second line of para 26, the date '08.08.2012' be substituted with the date '30.09.2012'. 7. In the eleventh line of para 34, the words AY '2013-14' be substituted with the words 'AY 2014-2015'. 8. In the appearance column, Jitendra Jain may be referred to as the learned Advocate and not the Senior Advocate. 9. The above corrections to be carried out in the original order and the order uploaded on the website. The memo for speaking to the minutes is disposed of accordingly. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J M. S. SONAK, J Page 2 of 2 13th December 2022 TARI AMRUT NAGESH Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2022.12.15 10:28:24 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →