KRISHNAN RAMNUJAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)1, NAVI MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal corrected the inadvertent typographical mistake in its previous order. The date for examination of Mr. Kanan was rectified to 05/12/2017, and the rest of the order remains unchanged.
What were the facts?
The Tribunal's previous order dated 29/08/2017 for AY 2009-10 contained a typographical error regarding the date for examination of Mr. Kanan. The order mistakenly mentioned 15/12/2017 instead of the correct date, 05/12/2017.
What were the issues?
Correction of a typographical error in a previously passed order of the Tribunal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Corrigendum We find that the Tribunal vide order dated 29/08/2017 disposed of the appeal of the assessee ( Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein, at page-4 of the order, the Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to examine Mr. Kanan on 15/12/2017. However, from the log book, we find that the date granted for examination of Mr. Kanan was on 05/12/2017 (as pronounced in the Court also) or within a week from 05/12/2017 and not 15/12/2017. Thus, an inadvertent typographical mistake occurred in the order. This date may be read as 05/12/2017 in place of 15/12/2017. The remaining part of the order will remain the same.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
