2023 (10) TMI 80 - HC - Customs

Amendment in shipping bills - Seeking to redecide the amendment request of the Petitioner and carry out amendment of GSTIN details in the BOE from Delhi to Vadodara Unit - HELD 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 in the present case. It is found 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, there are 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. There is no material adverse to the Petitioner as to why the amendment of the Bill of Entry to change the GSTIN number of Head Office, Delhi to Vadodara, Gujarat ought not to have been granted. The Assistant Commissioner certainly did not have any jurisdiction as to what would be the position of the Revenue and/or the jurisdiction or the consequences which would fall under the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, ex-facie, there was no jurisdiction with the Assistant Commissioner in taking such view and passing an order of the nature as impugned. The Commissioner of Customs needs to look into such approach of the officers and not take it lightly so as to prevent a likelihood that such officers for reasons best known to them acting contrary to the binding orders passed by this Court and this is one of such cases. In these circumstances, it is requested that the Commissioner of Customs to look into the issue on understanding of the legal matters by such officers as in the present case wherein the Assistant Commissioner has totally discarded to consider the binding effect of the orders of this Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was correct in rejecting the amendment request of the Petitioner under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the application of Section 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) was appropriate in this context.
3. Compliance with previous High Court directives regarding the amendment request.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of Amendment Request under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962
The Petitioner sought to amend the GSTIN details in the Bill of Entry (BoE) from Delhi to Vadodara. The High Court previously directed the Respondent to consider this application in light of Section 149 of the Customs Act and relevant case law. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the amendment, citing that the units in Delhi and Vadodara are distinct entities with separate GSTINs under the GST Act. The Court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that the Customs Act provisions should govern the decision. The Court noted that the documentary evidence supporting the amendment was available at the time of import and should have been considered.

Issue 2: Application of Section 25 of the GST Act, 2017
The Assistant Commissioner referred to Section 25 of the GST Act, arguing that the Delhi and Vadodara units are distinct entities and that amending the GSTIN would violate GST laws. The Court criticized this approach, stating that the Customs Officer should not have considered provisions beyond the Customs Act. The Court emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to apply GST Act provisions in this context.

Issue 3: Compliance with Previous High Court Directives
The Court observed that the Assistant Commissioner failed to comply with the earlier High Court directives, which clearly instructed him to decide the amendment request based on Section 149 of the Customs Act. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner's actions were contrary to the binding observations of the Division Bench and highlighted the need for the Commissioner of Customs to address such non-compliance by officers.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the amendment of the BoE within one week and imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the Assistant Commissioner, to be paid to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. The Court also requested the Commissioner of Customs to review the legal understanding of officers to prevent future non-compliance with court orders.