Post-clearance amendment of bills of entry for bona fide GSTIN errors cannot be refused due to system limitations.

Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of bills of entry to correct bona fide errors, including GSTIN particulars, where contemporaneous documentary evidence existed at the relevant time. The phrase requiring evidence on record is not confined to the department's files and may include relevant documents in the importer's possession, so the amendment request was maintainable and had to be examined on merits. An electronic system's inability to implement the correction could not override this statutory power; the authority was required to consider the request manually rather than reject it on that basis. The rejection orders were set aside and reconsideration was directed on the available material.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether amendment of bills of entry to correct GSTIN particulars could be permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act; (ii) whether the inability of the customs electronic system to carry out the correction could justify rejection of the request.

Issue (i): whether amendment of bills of entry to correct GSTIN particulars could be permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: Section 149 permits amendment of documents presented in the custom house, and where amendment is sought after clearance, the proviso allows it on the basis of documentary evidence that existed at the relevant time. The provision is intended to facilitate correction of bona fide and inadvertent errors. The phrase relating to evidence on record cannot be confined only to the department's record if contemporaneous documents in the importer's possession are available and relevant.

Conclusion: The request for amendment was maintainable and had to be considered on merits; this issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the inability of the customs electronic system to carry out the correction could justify rejection of the request.

Analysis: A technological limitation in the electronic system cannot override the statutory power to consider amendment under Section 149. The transition to the GST regime is meant to support seamless tax credit and administration, and system constraints cannot defeat substantive entitlement where the statute permits manual consideration on the basis of relevant materials. The authority was therefore required to examine the request manually rather than reject it solely because the system would not permit alteration.

Conclusion: The system limitation could not be a valid ground to refuse amendment; this issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection orders were set aside, the amendment request was directed to be reconsidered by the Assessing Authority on the basis of available material, and the writ petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 149 of the Customs Act authorises post-clearance amendment of bills of entry on the basis of contemporaneous documentary evidence, and administrative or technological constraints cannot defeat that statutory power where the correction is sought for a bona fide error.

---