Rectification of typographical errors led to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing and reopened adjudication.

Typographical errors in the final order, including mention of the appellant's name and an incorrect operative disposal, were rectified. Because both sides sought correction and the matter required consideration afresh, the earlier disposal was not maintained and the appeal was restored to its original number for final hearing afresh. No substantive determination of the tax dispute was made, and the matter was reopened for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order called for rectification on account of typographical errors and whether the appeal should be restored for hearing afresh.

Analysis: The order records that both sides sought rectification of the final order. It notes that the appellant's name had been wrongly mentioned and that the operative portion contained an incorrect disposal. In view of the typographical mistakes and the need to consider the matter afresh, the earlier disposal was not maintained and the appeal was directed to be listed again.

Conclusion: The applications were allowed to the extent of restoring the appeal to its original number for final hearing afresh.

Final Conclusion: The matter was reopened for fresh adjudication and no final determination on the substantive tax dispute was made.

---