Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Rectification of Mistake Granted to Correct Error in Final Order The Tribunal granted the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application to rectify errors in the final order regarding an appeal filed by a company before the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Rectification of Mistake Granted to Correct Error in Final Order
The Tribunal granted the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application to rectify errors in the final order regarding an appeal filed by a company before the Apex Court. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in referring to the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn when it was actually dismissed. The order was corrected by deleting the inaccurate terms and sentences, ensuring the accuracy of the record.
Issues Involved: Rectification of errors in the final order passed by the Tribunal regarding the appeal filed by a company before the Apex Court.
Analysis: The judgment deals with a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application filed by the respondent seeking rectification of errors in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The respondent contended that there was an error in the final order where the Tribunal referred to the appeal filed by a specific company before the Apex Court as dismissed as withdrawn on a particular date. The respondent argued that the appeal was actually dismissed by the Apex Court and not withdrawn. It was clarified that the appeal filed by another company had been dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent requested rectification of this error, which was deemed apparent on the face of the record.
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the impugned order. It was noted that in para 6 and para 12 of the order, there was a reference to the appeal filed by the company before the Apex Court being dismissed as withdrawn. Upon perusal of the order presented by the respondent's counsel, the Tribunal acknowledged the error in the order and agreed that it needed rectification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to rectify the impugned order by deleting the words "as withdrawn" in para 6 and 12. Additionally, the last sentence in para 6 was also deleted to correct the mistake. The ROM application was allowed in the specified terms, and the rectification was made accordingly.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on rectifying a factual error in the final order passed by the Tribunal regarding the status of an appeal filed by a company before the Apex Court. The rectification was deemed necessary as the error was apparent on the face of the record, and the Tribunal modified the impugned order by deleting the inaccurate terms and sentences to ensure the correctness of the order.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
