9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rathi a/w. Ms. Ashwini Chandrasekaran a/w. Mr. Prasad Avhad and Mr. Surajsinh Malas i/by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 149 by way of amendment; however, such amendments do not have the effect of stultifying the prayers made by the respective petitioners. The decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra), with due respect, proceeds to read the only proviso to section 149 (as it then stood) in a constricted manner as if the words except 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 are not there in such proviso. However, it could be so 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 clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r are quite peculiar, which are required to be noted, which reads thus:- It may be further noted that, movement to any place in India, post clearance by Customs will be governed by the CGST law and the GST Policy. In the instant case, the units based in the Delhi and Vadodara have separate GSTINs, under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and are entirely distinct entities. Hence, the Taxable Person in Delhi is different from the Taxable Person in Vadodara. In this context, when the address provided in the invoice is of Delhi, accepting amendment from Delhi GSTIN to Vadodara GSTIN, is not be acceptable under the GST law. As per Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017, these two units are reckoned as different entities and availing or utilization of input tax credit across entities, located in different states, would essentially vitiate the concept of destination based consumption tax, a fundamental principle under the GST law. This has been also endorsed by the Customs and GST policy wing of the CBIC. Hence as taxable person in Delhi is different from Vadodara with different GSTIN and as all legal document available on record at the time of clearance of goods for home co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear directions of the Division Bench in the Petitioner s writ petition the application as made by the Petitioner ought to have been granted. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the bill of lading to submit that the same referred to the Petitioner s GSTIN which pertains to Vadodara, Gujarat, in respect of the BoE in question. It is her submission that all these documents were placed for consideration of the Assistant Commissioner and which has been totally overlooked to give an appropriate effect and for correction of the inadvertent mistakes which have taken place in entering a wrong GSTIN in the BoE. She, accordingly, submits that the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Masurkar, learned counsel for the Respondent would oppose this petition relying on the reply affidavit as filed to the petition. Referring to the reply affidavit filed by Mr. Rajiv G. Kakeri, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group II (C-F), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, our attention is drawn to para 4.4 of the said reply, wherein, it is contended that first proviso to Section 149 does not permit amendment of the BoE, after customs clearance has been given, ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence which was available for consideration of the Assistant Commissioner the amendment to the BoE ought to have been allowed. It is not the case that the Assistant Commissioner did not have the authority to modify the document and more particularly in a situation that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the Importer in entering the wrong GSTIN number. The case of the department is not of any illegality or any malafides on the part of the Petitioner, so as to deliberately effect the clearance of goods on a false or erroneous GSTIN. We find from the bill of lading that it contains the GSTIN number with details of the Petitioner unit at Vadodara, Gujarat. Thus, 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. 12. The reasons as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, which has been noted by us above, in our opinion, would not satisfy the test in law, in as much as, it would be none of the concern of the Custom Officer considering the scheme of Customs Act, as also the GST laws, that the Assistant Commissioner could have travelled b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by this Court and this is one of such cases. In these circumstances, we would request 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. 14. Copy of this order be forwarded for appropriate consideration of the Commissioner and the steps being taken to appraise such situations to the concerned officers be informed by the Commissioner to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of one month from the date the order is received by the Commissioner. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow the present petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 16. The amendment to the Bill of Entry be issued within a period of one week from the day a copy of this order is made available. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the petition with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid personally by the Assistant Commissioner, who has passed this order to be deposited with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within a period of three month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
