<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tribunal&#039;s Decision on HIMANI BOROPLUS Classification Challenged for Procedural Errors in VAT and Sales Tax Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72040</link>
    <description>Classification of services - HIMANI BOROPLUS ANTISEPTIC CREAM - Medicament or not - The Tribunal did not direct remand, for ascertaining the question of fact regarding ingredients of the product. Instead, without itself ascertaining on the fact, it went on to dismiss the appeal of revenue. - There was no satisfaction rendered by opposite party (assessee) on the second test. It must be said that it was for opposite party to prove the product fell under the entry as the Tribunal erred in saying the burden was on petitioner (Revenue) to prove the negative. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:18:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:18:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal&#039;s Decision on HIMANI BOROPLUS Classification Challenged for Procedural Errors in VAT and Sales Tax Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72040</link>
      <description>Classification of services - HIMANI BOROPLUS ANTISEPTIC CREAM - Medicament or not - The Tribunal did not direct remand, for ascertaining the question of fact regarding ingredients of the product. Instead, without itself ascertaining on the fact, it went on to dismiss the appeal of revenue. - There was no satisfaction rendered by opposite party (assessee) on the second test. It must be said that it was for opposite party to prove the product fell under the entry as the Tribunal erred in saying the burden was on petitioner (Revenue) to prove the negative. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:18:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>