TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ani for respondent nos.1 to 6. Ms. Neha Mehta a/w Siddharth Chandrashekhar i/by Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar for respondent no.7. ORDER PC: 1. These two writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law; hence, the same have been heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021 has prayed for, inter alia, the following relief: - "(a) To issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to allow the amendment of BOE as requested by the Petitioner vide the emails and the letters and amend the GSTIN and the address in the BOE dated August 07, 2020;" The right that the petitioner seek....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or warehoused, etc. except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, etc. Thus, amendment of the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared for home consumption. The only condition is that in such a case, the amendment shall be allowed only on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods." 5. Ms. Rathi has also relied on the judgment and order dated March 5, 2021 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 34627 and 34629 of 2019 [Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.], wherein it ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 8. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners by Ms. Rathi and Mr. Paranjape, Mr. Jetly has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2019 (369) E.L.T. 543 (Bom.) [Micromax Informatics Ltd. vs. Union of India] and submitted that once the goods are 'out of charge', any application for amendment cannot be entertained in exercise of power conferred by section 149 of the Act. Our pointed attention is drawn to paragraph 30 of the decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra), where it has, inter alia, been held as follows: "30. ... We may also record that the Counsel for the Department had referred to Section 149 of the Act and contended that it was open ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing IGST credit at GST portal. I say that under the ICES system [Indian Customs EDI System] once Out of Charge / Clearance is given for goods imported and date thereof is transmitted to GSTN, no amendments in GSTN ID can be made in the ICES system. Following the request for amendment/corrections by the Petitioners this Respondent changed the Branch address from Delhi to Vadodara in the Bill of Entry No. 8405273 dated 07.08.2020 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit '2', but the request for amendment in the GSTN Portal by the Petitioners could not be acceded to." 10. Since one of the prayers for amendment of the Bill of Entry of the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021 has been accepted by the respondents and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that such amendments, as may be specified by the Board, may be done by the importer or exporter on the common portal." 13. The second and third provisos have been incorporated in section 149 by way of amendment; however, such amendments do not have the effect of stultifying the prayers made by the respective petitioners. The decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra), with due respect, proceeds to read the only proviso to section 149 (as it then stood) in a constricted manner as if the words "except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be" are not there in such proviso. However, it could be so that the interpretation placed by the Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 149 of the Act. Since the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021 was the same petitioner before the Gujarat High Court, we may accept the statement of Mr. Paranjape that the order dated June 23, 2021 has since been complied with. What is of importance in this regard is that the respondents before the Gujarat High Court did not raise the argument that amendment in the Bill of Entry is not permissible in terms of section 149 of the Act. We cannot allow the same set of respondents to prevaricate and take divergent stands before different High Courts. 17. Although the opening words of section 149 say that, "save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41", it has not been demonstrated before us that such other provisions in the....