GST Update No 319 on rectification of GSTIN in bills of entry

It is very common that there are clerical errors in mentioning various particulars in the bill of entries but the assessee have to struggle a lot in amending or rectifying such inadvertent errors occurred during the normal course of trade. Although, it is observed that the High Courts take a lenient view enabling the assessees to rectify the mistakes but revenue authorities are reluctant to allow rectifications in the bill of entries. Recently, one such case on similar subject matter was reported before Bombay High Court in the case of HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V/S THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner’s application for amendment of 13 bill of entries filed for imported goods was rejected by the departmental officers. The bill of entries had erroneously given a particular GSTIN whereas it should be some other GSTIN. One more case in this respect also occurred wherein similar errors were committed by petitioner within the jurisdiction of other Commissionerates and those Commissionerates have permitted petitioner to amend the bills of entry under Section 149 of the said Act. It was observed that in 9 out of 13 bills of entry, petitioner mentioned GSTIN of the plant at Himachal Pradesh where the imported goods were sought to be consumed. The ITC of IGST was taken in importing state i.e. Maharashtra wherein the goods were imported and reflected in GSTR-3B. The petitioner did not take ITC of IGST in the GSTIN of the plant at Himachal Pradeshwhere the imported goods were sought to be consumed. On remaining 4 bills of entry, GSTIN of the plant at Uttarakhand where the imported goods were sought to be consumed was mentioned. Upon realizing the error, petitioner applied for amendment under the provisions of Section 149 to amend 13 bills of entry.It was stated that despite remanding the case back, the revenue authorities rejected the application on unreasonable grounds. Reliance was placed on the earlier order wherein reference was made to the decision given by hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited wherein it was held that assessee should not be denied relief merely because the system does not permit the same and the amendment of documents should be considered manually.

It was argued by counsel of revenue that GST Laws does not permit such amendment post clearance from Customs under Section 149 of the said Act.
The Court stated that after considering the application if the goods have been cleared for home consumption as in the present case, the proper officer has to only consider the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared and nothing more. In this respect, 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. Therefore, it was stated that there cannot be any impediment to grant petitioner’s request for amending the bills of entry. The impugned order is quashed and set aside with the direction to the respondent to permit amending the bills of entry as per section 149 of the said Act.The above decision is yet another example of the fact that substantial benefits should not be denied to the assessee merely because of technical lapses. There had been various cases wherein the Courts have adopted a lenient approach and granted relief to assessee. The inability to make amendment/rectification by the system cannot lead to denial of request of the assessee as the department ought to consider manual applications in such circumstances. The Judicial Rulings like these should be followed unconditionally and unreservedly to avoid any further unnecessary litigations resulting in wastage of time of Courts.

Comments

GST Update No 319 on rectification of GSTIN in bills of entry

Post a Comment

Query