2021 (4) TMI 265 - HC - Customs

Court allows submission of evidence to prove GSTIN errors, emphasizing tech limitations in GST transactions

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing submission of relevant material to prove GSTIN errors under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1944. The ... Amendment of bills of entry (b/e) - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1944 - Change of GST Numbers of unit located in different location - argument put forth by the revenue in that case was that, only such documents that were already on record with the respondents could be taken into account to correct the error, if at all and no other documents may be admitted for that purpose - whether the limitation of the technology available at the end of the respondent can stand in the way of the petitioner obtaining substantial relief? - HELD THAT:- The goods have already been cleared for home consumption and thus no amendment may be made, would fall in the face of the proviso to Section 149 which imposes a condition to be satisfied by an importer if he requests amendment after the goods have been cleared. The imposition of the condition itself means that a request for amendment may certainly be considered, subject to satisfaction of the condition imposed - Assessing Authority cannot restrict her examination only to documents that are available on her record - answered in favour of the petitioner. The purpose of transition to the goods and services tax regime is to facilitate the conduct of transactions pan India and all consequences thereof including the seamless availment of credit. The robustness of the information technology system is critical to this venture. It is thus incumbent upon the authorities to ensure that technology is kept up to date in order to facilitate a seamless exchange of data. The impugned order states that ICEA System is limited in its operation and cannot permit any changes once the goods have left for home consumption - The operation of the 2017 Act cannot go back to the Jurassic age denying an assessee relief that it would have obtained under the earlier enactment. Measures must be put in place for this purpose and till such time this is done, amendment of documents must be considered manually. The petitioner succeeds and must be permitted to place all records on material that it has in its possession to prove its plea in regard to the erroneous mention of the GSTIN numbers in the b/e. Though some samples of the documents are placed before the Court - petitioner is permitted to approach the Assessing Authority i.e. R5, seeking amendment of the b/e, which request shall be considered by the Officer and orders passed after hearing the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of first hearing with all consequential reliefs thereof - Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge of orders rejecting the request for amendment of bills of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1944.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing toiletries and consumer goods, faced issues with GSTIN numbers in bills of entry (b/e) filed for imports from overseas suppliers. Due to errors in GSTIN numbers, IGST credits were not claimed correctly, leading to potential credit questioning. The petitioner sought amendment under Section 149 of the Act, but was denied due to data already shared with GSTN. The petitioner argued for the amendment citing inadvertent errors and bona fide mistakes, supported by specimen documents. The respondent's refusal was based on system limitations and safeguard mechanisms to maintain transaction integrity.The legal questions raised were whether Section 149 supports the petitioner's request for amendment and if technology limitations can hinder relief. The court interpreted Section 149, emphasizing correction of inadvertent errors if proven bonafide, even after goods clearance. The court rejected the revenue's argument restricting consideration to existing records, allowing for additional evidence to establish errors. The transition to GST aimed for seamless transactions, requiring updated technology for efficient data exchange. The court criticized the system's limitations post-clearance, stating the need for manual amendments until technology upgrades.The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing submission of all relevant material to prove GSTIN errors. The Assessing Officer was directed to review the evidence and decide on the amendment request within four weeks. The petitioner was also granted a stay on a pending credit reversal notice until after the assessment. The judgment emphasized the importance of technology in facilitating GST transactions and the need for authorities to adapt systems for efficient operations in the GST regime.