<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (4) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406149</link>
    <description>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&#039;s files and may include relevant documents in the importer&#039;s possession, so the amendment request was maintainable and had to be examined on merits. An electronic system&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2022 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406149</link>
      <description>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&#039;s files and may include relevant documents in the importer&#039;s possession, so the amendment request was maintainable and had to be examined on merits. An electronic system&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>