Deficiency in the GST portal has to be covered up manually and can’t be a excuse for not amending BOE

Last updated: 28 September 2021

Court :
Bombay High Court

Brief :
In Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021]and in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors, [Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021]involve a common question of fact and law and have been heard together, the common conflict herein is regarding amendment of Bill of Entry ("BOE"), seeking amendment in GSTIN and the address in the BOE.

Citation :
Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021

In Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021] and in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors, [Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021] involve a common question of fact and law and have been heard together, the common conflict herein is regarding amendment of Bill of Entry ("BOE"), seeking amendment in GSTIN and the address in the BOE.

The Department submitted that once the goods are 'out of charge', any application for amendment cannot be entertained in exercise of power conferred by Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Customs Act").

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied upon the decision in the case of Dimension Data India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Anr. [Writ Petition (L) No. 249 of 2020 dated January 18, 2021] which correctly interprets Section 149 ibid and wherein it was held that amendment to the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared.

Further, held that the Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Unilever Ltd.("the Petitioners") had prayed for amendment of documents only, which is squarely covered under Section 149 of the Customs Act, any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the Department 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. The grounds for not allowing amendments are clearly untenable and hence, judicial interdiction for securing justice in the present cases is considered necessary.

Petition disposed of by directing the Department to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective Petitioners in accordance with law, upon granting the authorized representative of the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as early as possible but not later than four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.