Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1678

Amendment in Shipping Bill possible if evidence substantiating change existed at the time of exports.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (EXPORT), NHAVA SHEVA Versus S.K. AGE EXPORTS
 
Citation:-2013 (290) .107 (Tri- Mumbai)

Brief facts:-Material facts of this case are that firstly appellant filed the condonation of delay application for condoning the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. The delay is due to misplacement of the file and it took some time for the department to trace the file. Considering the reasons given for the delay as satisfactory, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.
The respondent herein as M/s. S.K. Age Exports had sought amendment in shipping bill No. 2534417, dated 14-1-2004 for correcting the Advance Licence Number mentioned therein on the ground that the Advance Licence No. 0310237221, dated 19-11-2003 had been wrongly mentioned. The said advance licence had already been closed by the DGFT. The mistake had come to light during the Internal Audit. In lieu of the said advance licence, the exporter M/s. S.K. Age Exports wanted to mention Advance Licence No. 0310201208, dated 9-5-2003. Accordingly, they filed an application under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of shipping bill. The said request was rejected by the lower adjudicating authority on the ground that necessary documentary evidence was not submitted. The respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who allowed their appeal. The Revenue is aggrieved of the same and preferred this appeal.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue contented the only ground that as the exporter did not submit the invoices initially at the time of claim for amendment and therefore, their claim merits rejection.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent contented that under Section 149 of the Customs Act, the exporter is entitled to amend the shipping bill even after the goods have been exported 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. In the instant case, the Advance Licence dated 9-5-2003 and the relevant export invoices were in existence when the shipping bill was filed on 14-1-2004 vide shipping bill No. 2434417. Therefore, the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of amendment under Section 149.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-The bench aftercarefully considering the rival submissions quoted that under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein the proper officer has been given the discretion to authorize any document, after it has been presented in the Custom House to be amended. In the case of shipping bill, the amendment can be carried out even after the goods have been exported on the basis of evidence, which was in existence at the time the goods were exported. The lower appellate authority in the impugned order has given a clear and categorical finding that “in the instant case, the existence of valid Advance Licence No. 031201208, dated 9-5-2003 with the appellant in which the shipment could have been made is not under any dispute. Thus, there appears no impediment in permitting the only amendment sought in the shipping bill i.e. of amending the Advance Licence number.”. For amending the shipping bill, the only condition is that the document should have been in existence at the time the original exports were carried out. That is not disputed. Therefore, the respondent is rightly entitled for amendment of the shipping bill. Thus, Tribunal did not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal and the same is dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:-The substance of this case is that section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment in the shipping bill if the evidence supporting amendment existed at the time when the goods were exported. As the Advance License number sought to be amended existed at the shipment of goods, there was no bar in amending the same in the shipping bill. 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com