Facts of the Case

The present order was passed in WPA 27779 of 2024, a writ petition that had earlier been disposed of by the Calcutta High Court vide order dated 24th December, 2024. In that order, the Court had allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Mecel Construction against the Assistant Commissioner, Haldia-I Division, CGST & Ors., quashed the appellate order impugned therein, and restored the petitioner's rights under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with all consequential benefits. Subsequently, the matter was mentioned again before the Court on 10th January, 2025, when Mr. Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Sabyasachi Mandal, pointed out that paragraph 11 of the order dated 24th December, 2024 contained a typographical mistake, and prayed for its correction. Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya and Mr. Anurag Roy appeared for the CGST Authority.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether paragraph 11 of the order dated 24th December, 2024, passed in WPA 27779 of 2024, contained a typographical or clerical error requiring correction.
  2. What the corrected text of the operative paragraph ought to read, and whether the remaining portions of the order were to remain undisturbed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Mr. Ananda Sen, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there was a typographical mistake in the order dated 24th December, 2024.
  • He prayed for correction of paragraph 11 of that order so that it correctly reflects the relief actually intended to be granted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record any submissions made in opposition by Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya and Mr. Anurag Roy, appearing for the CGST Authority.
  • The correction application appears to have proceeded on the basis of the petitioner's submission alone, without any recorded contest from the CGST side.

Court Order / Findings

  • On perusal of the order dated 24th December, 2024, the Court found that paragraph 11 indeed required correction.
  • The Court directed that the words ‘Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the appellate order is quashed. The petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision, without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders,’ be substituted with ‘Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017 are restored, with all benefits that accompany this decision.’
  • The Court clarified that the other portions of the order dated 24th December, 2024 shall remain the same.
  • The parties were directed to act in terms of the copy of the corrected order downloaded from the official website of the Court.

Important Clarification

  • This order is purely corrective in nature; it does not decide any fresh issue of law or fact and lays down no general principle of GST law.
  • The correction removes the explicit reference to ‘quashing’ the appellate order and the phrase ‘without any adverse consequences arising from the annulled orders’ from the operative paragraph, confining the corrected text to a bare declaration that the writ petition is allowed and that the petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017 stand restored with attendant benefits.
  • Anyone relying on the order dated 24th December, 2024 passed in WPA 27779 of 2024 must read it together with this correction dated 10th January, 2025, since the corrected text alone reflects the Court's actual operative direction.
  • Readers should treat this note as a record of a clerical correction to an earlier order in the same case, not as an independent precedent on the merits of the underlying GST dispute.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the order refers generally to the petitioner's ‘rights’ under the GST Act, 2017 being restored; no specific charging or procedural section is separately discussed in this correction order.
  • Constitution of India, Article 226 – the writ jurisdiction under which the underlying petition (WPA) was maintained before the Calcutta High Court; not separately discussed in this correction order.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a procedural correction order and does not itself adjudicate a fresh lis between the parties. However, since it affirms and only rephrases the earlier order dated 24th December, 2024 allowing the writ petition and restoring the petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017, the outcome continues to operate in favour of the petitioner-assessee, M/s. Mecel Construction, subject to the corrected and slightly narrower wording of the relief.

Related Case Laws

This correction is consequential to, and must be read with, the Calcutta High Court's substantive order dated 24th December, 2024 passed in the same writ petition, WPA 27779 of 2024 (M/s. Mecel Construction vs Assistant Commissioner, Haldia-I Division, CGST & Ors.), which contains the Court's full facts and reasoning on the underlying dispute. Readers are encouraged to refer to that order directly for the substantive holding that this note only corrects in phrasing.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta
  • Case No.: WPA 27779 of 2024
  • Parties: M/s. Mecel Construction vs Assistant Commissioner, Haldia-I Division, CGST & Ors.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
  • Date of this Order: 10th January, 2025 (correcting the order dated 24th December, 2024)
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ananda Sen, Mr. Sabyasachi Mandal
  • Counsel for CGST Authority: Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya, Mr. Anurag Roy

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.