Tribunal Refuses Rectification of Typo in Order on Show-Cause Notices

The Tribunal declined to rectify a typographical error in an order concerning the total amount involved in show-cause notices. The Revenue sought rectification, claiming the total amount was &8377;138.00 crore, not &8377;1.38 crore as stated. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, with the Respondents arguing against rectification. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection, as the Respondents assured they wouldn't limit the demand to &8377;1.38 crore in fresh proceedings. Rectifying the error was deemed unnecessary at that stage, with the Tribunal disposing of the Revenue's application accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of typographical error in the order dated 31/07/2018.

Analysis:
The Revenue sought rectification of a typographical error in the order dated 31/07/2018, concerning the total amount involved in five show-cause notices. The Revenue contended that the total amount was &8377; 138.00 crore, but it was mistakenly mentioned as &8377; 1.38 crore in the order. The Respondents had appealed to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's Remand Order, and the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Respondents argued that since the Tribunal's order merged with the Supreme Court's order, there was no need for rectification. The Senior Counsel for the Revenue expressed concerns that the Respondents might misinterpret the order and limit the demands to &8377; 1.38 crore instead of &8377; 138.00 crore. However, the Respondent clarified that they would not make such an argument before the adjudicating authority.

Considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the matter had been remanded for fresh adjudication, with the scope expanded by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection, as the Respondents assured they would not restrict the demand to &8377; 1.38 crore in the fresh proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that rectifying the typographical error at this stage would be more academic than practical and could potentially hinder the de novo proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to resort to rectifying the error, disposing of the Revenue's application accordingly.

---