9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; d. To award Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Respondents;" 3. This is the second round of litigation at the behest of the Petitioner on the same cause of action. The Petitioner initially had approached this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021 making an identical grievance as urged in the present petition, namely that the Respondent be directed to amend the Bill of Entry (for short "BoE") as requested by the Petitioner in its application. The said application of the Petitioner was to the effect that the GSTIN and the address in the Bill of Entry No. 8405273 dated 7th August 2021 be remitted to be amended. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 15th September 2021, disposed of the said petition by directing the Respondent to consider the said application as made by the Petitioner, in the light of the observations made in the said order and in accordance with law and after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of a hearing. We may observe that in issuing such directions, the Division B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 system for such amendment. We also record not having been shown from the reply-affidavit that even a manual amendment is not possible." 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous and contrary to law as the Customs Officer has travelled beyond the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and more particularly, in applying the provisions of Section 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "GST Act"). Our attention has been drawn to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the GST Act, 2017 to contend that it is specifically provided by such provisions that a person who has opted or is required to opt for more than one registration, whether, in one State or Union Territory or more than one State or Union Territory shall in respect of each and such registration be treated as a distinct person for the purpose of the GST Act only and, therefore, it cannot have any other relevance. In so far as the application as made by the Petitioner is concerned, it is her contention that what was imperative for the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was to consider the application of the Petitioner by applying the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for entry of goods on importation, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order and the Petition would be required to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at the out set we may observe that the reasons as set out in the impugned order and more particularly, the Assistant Commissioner referring to the provisions of Section 25 of the GST Act, 2017 does not commend us. We find that the reasons as set out in the impugned order are quite different from the justification, the officer intends to give in the reply affidavit. Be that as it may, we find much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have confined himself to the provisions of the Customs Act, namely, the provisions of Section 149, which provides for amendment of the documents. For convenience, the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, which reads thus:- "Section 149. Amendment of documents - Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the customs house to be amended: Provided that no amendment of a Bill of Entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be so auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the observations made by the Division Bench. The Division Bench had made categorical observations interpreting Section 149 of the Customs Act as also considering decisions of this Court and also the Madras High Court. We are at pains to note that the purport of the said orders passed by the Division Bench have been completely overlooked and/or nullified by the Assistant Commissioner in passing the impugned order. Moreover, a serious view would be required to be taken when categorical observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its operative directions that the Petitioner's application be decided in the light of the observations made and in accordance with law, have been mischievously overlooked/misinterpreted and/or not applied by the Assistant Commissioner. We may also observe that when the Division Bench has observed that the application of the Petitioner be decided in the light of the observations as made by the Court and in accordance with law that could not mean that the Assistant Commissioner would be completely indifferent to such observations of the Division Bench and/or discard the binding observations as made by the Court as being canvassed by Ms. Masurkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
