Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
