Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
HC determined the petitioner's products were correctly classified under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks" rather than under 2202 10 90 as "waters containing added sugar or flavoured." The court held that classification depends on the dominant nature of the product, with the presence of fruit juice attributing essential character to the beverage. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing alternative test reports. The court set aside penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act, finding no evidence of willful suppression or fraud. Interest levied under Section 50 was also invalidated, and the court clarified that post-October 2021 tax notifications could not be applied retrospectively.
HC determined the petitioner's products were correctly classified under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks" rather than under 2202 10 90 as "waters containing added sugar or flavoured." The court held that classification depends on the dominant nature of the product, with the presence of fruit juice attributing essential character to the beverage. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing alternative test reports. The court set aside penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act, finding no evidence of willful suppression or fraud. Interest levied under Section 50 was also invalidated, and the court clarified that post-October 2021 tax notifications could not be applied retrospectively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
