9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 57,25,526/- indicated in the communication to the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, was a typographic error and the actual amount is only ₹ 5,72,526/-. Held that:- considering the fact that the mistake has been categorically admitted by the 4th respondent it is only proper that the rectification application be considered. The 3rd respondent shall re-adjudicate the issue. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 28-3-2016 - K. Vinod Chandran, J. Shri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, P. Gopinath, P. Benny Thomas, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas and Raja Kannan, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil and Dinesh M., SCs, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order against which the petitioner has moved a rectifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has to be sustained and in any event an appeal has to be preferred by the petitioner to challenge the same. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that there was a mistake in so far as the award amount being communicated and the details of such work awarded has also been produced by them. It has been categorically stated that the amount of ₹ 57,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer since even different awards made and carried out by different contractors if exceeding the limit would come within the definition. This is an aspect which need not be considered by this Court at this point of time since this Court is directing re-adjudication of the matter by the 3rd respondent. 5. Only to facilitate such re-adjudication Exhibit P7 is set aside, making it clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
