<?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>2025 (3) TMI 549 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767163</link>
    <description>Carbonated fruit drinks whose essential character derived from fruit juice or pulp were held classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks, not under the water-based entry for added sugar or flavouring. Laboratory reports, labels and FSSAI standards supported that classification, and the Revenue failed to justify departure from the assessees&#039; declared entry. On that basis, the invocation of Section 74, together with penalty under Section 122 and interest under Section 50, was held unsustainable because there was no deliberate suppression and the core demand failed. Notifications enhancing GST and cess on carbonated fruit beverages were held prospective only and could not apply to prior periods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:26:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 549 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767163</link>
      <description>Carbonated fruit drinks whose essential character derived from fruit juice or pulp were held classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks, not under the water-based entry for added sugar or flavouring. Laboratory reports, labels and FSSAI standards supported that classification, and the Revenue failed to justify departure from the assessees&#039; declared entry. On that basis, the invocation of Section 74, together with penalty under Section 122 and interest under Section 50, was held unsustainable because there was no deliberate suppression and the core demand failed. Notifications enhancing GST and cess on carbonated fruit beverages were held prospective only and could not apply to prior periods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>