AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 29th October 2021 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting petitioner's application for amendment of the 13 bills of entry that petitioner had filed when importing certain goods. It is petitioner's case that in the bills of entry as filed petitioner had erroneously given a particular Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), whereas it should be some other GSTIN. It is also Gauri Gaekwad petitioner's case that when similar errors were committed by petitioner within the jurisdiction of other Commissionerates, those Customs Commissionerates have permitted petitioner to amend the bills of entry under Section 149 of the said Act. 4. In 9 out of the 13 bills of entry, petitioner had mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons made in the said order dated 15th September 2021 passed by this Court. It will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 11 to 19 of the said order, which read as under : 11. Insofar as Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021 is concerned, we are called upon to examine the legality of the impugned order dated December 18, 2018 in the light of section 149 of the Act and its interpretation by this Court and the other Courts in the decisions referred to above. 12. For facility of convenience, section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act of 2021, reads as follows: "149. Amendment of documents. - Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o that the interpretation placed by the Court on the first proviso is correct for the purpose of determination of the issue arising for decision therein, i.e., rejection of the petitioner's refund claims for the period between July 2014 and June 2015. We, therefore, hold that such interpretation of section 149 as made by the coordinate Bench turns on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. 14. In our considered opinion, the decision in Dimension Data India Private Ltd. (supra) correctly interprets section 149 and we share the view expressed therein that amendment to the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared. 15. The decision in Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra) dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has not been demonstrated before us that such other provisions in the Act do stand in the way of the respective petitioners' prayers for amendment; also that, the amendments sought for by them cannot be allowed because such amendment is requested on the basis of documentary evidence which were not in existence at the time of clearance of the goods. Given such situation, coupled with the fact that the petitioners had prayed for amendment of documents only, which is squarely covered under section 149 of the Act, any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the respondents as a shield so as to deny relief to a party; if indeed the system does not permit, the deficiency has to be covered up manually until improvements are effected in the sy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to respondent no.3, in short the GST Laws does not permit such amendment post clearance from Customs under Section 149 of the said Act. 9. In our view, while considering application under Section 149 of the said Act, if the goods have been cleared for home consumption, which in this case has been, the proper officer has to only consider the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared and nothing more. There is nothing to indicate in the impugned order that petitioner had not submitted the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared. Such a ground has also not been taken when petitioner had approached this Court in the earlier round and, therefore, in our view, ....