Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court decided not to delve into the merits of the case. It directed the concerned respondents (Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7) to re-examine the petitioner's request for amendment of GST details in the Bills of Entry. This re-examination is to be conducted after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing and allowing them to produce relevant documents. The respondents are to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within six weeks from the receipt of the order's copy. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits, and the respondents are free to consider the request in light of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and other applicable provisions. No specific finding was made on the petitioner's right to amend or the validity of the IGST credit, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, challenged an order dated 16.01.2019 passed by respondent No. 5 and a communication dated 24.01.2019 issued by respondent No. 7. The petitioner sought to amend 324 Bills of Entry by substituting the existing GSTIN Number with GSTIN No. 24AAACH1004N1Z0. The petitioner also requested that respondents refrain from denying or recovering IGST credit taken by the petitioner for imported goods covered by these Bills of Entry, which were maintained under the new GSTIN. The petitioner's request for amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, was rejected due to a system remark stating "Data already shared with GSTN. No amendment in GSTN ID is Possible now."

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can amend the GSTIN details in the Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the system indicates data has already been shared with GSTN and no amendment is possible. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their request to amend the GST details in the Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, was wrongly rejected solely based on a system remark indicating data sharing with GSTN, preventing further amendment. The petitioner sought directions to allow amendment and protect their IGST credit. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7) submitted, through their affidavits-in-reply, that they had no objection if the petitioner's request for amendment was considered afresh. They proposed giving the petitioner an opportunity to prove their documents in support of the amendment sought, in light of Section 149 of the Customs Act.