Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AAAR affirmed that the product is classifiable under tariff item 38089340 as a plant growth regulator and attracts integrated tax at 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) under the referenced notification. The authority held that the appellant bears the onus of full disclosure in an advance ruling application and cannot rely on proprietary nondisclosure by its supplier to avoid that duty; alleged non-party status to prior disputes was immaterial, and submitted laboratory certificates undermined that claim. Challenges that the product is a fertilizer or a vegetable-origin enzyme were rejected for lack of probative evidence. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
AAAR affirmed that the product is classifiable under tariff item 38089340 as a plant growth regulator and attracts integrated tax at 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) under the referenced notification. The authority held that the appellant bears the onus of full disclosure in an advance ruling application and cannot rely on proprietary nondisclosure by its supplier to avoid that duty; alleged non-party status to prior disputes was immaterial, and submitted laboratory certificates undermined that claim. Challenges that the product is a fertilizer or a vegetable-origin enzyme were rejected for lack of probative evidence. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.