Court Corrects Typo in Refund Claim Amount, Orders Modification

The court corrected a typographical error in a refund claim amount mentioned in its order. The original amount denied by the Revenue was &8377; 6,76,301, but the court mistakenly stated it as &8377; 6,26,301. The court acknowledged the error and directed the modification of the paragraph to reflect the correct refund amount. The case involved a dispute related to the rejection of a refund claim based on the description of plastic granules in invoices. The court found the error to be typographical and easily rectifiable, ultimately disposing of the application in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved: Typographical error in mentioning the refund claim amount.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee pointing out a typographical error in the refund claim amount mentioned in the order of the bench. The original amount denied by the Revenue was &8377; 6,76,301/-, but the bench's order mistakenly stated it as &8377; 6,26,301/-. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate referred to the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal to clarify the correct refund amount. The Revenue's representative acknowledged the typographical error, agreeing that it was a clear mistake on the bench's part. The member (Judicial) reviewed the lower authorities' orders and the bench's order, concluding that no new grounds, additional documents, or legal debates were involved. The error was deemed a typographical one, apparent on the record, and easily rectifiable. Consequently, the member directed the modification of the paragraph to reflect the correct refund amount of &8377; 6,76,301/-. The modified paragraph detailed the appellant's claim for refund related to the sale of goods and the discrepancy in the description of plastic granules in the invoices, which led to the rejection of the refund claim by the Revenue. The appellant's argument, based on the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, was that a generic description like "plastic granules" sufficed, and the absence of specific grades in the invoices should not have led to the rejection of the refund claim. The application was disposed of accordingly, with the order being dictated and pronounced in the open court.

---