Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4823 
Join Channel 
