<?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 (4) TMI 687 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768773</link>
    <description>Goods must clearly satisfy the statutory description of an IT product or capital goods to qualify for the concessional 5% rate; items such as smart tables, display counters, leaflet holders and similar display fixtures were held not to fall within the specified entry or the definition of capital goods, and were therefore taxable under the residuary entry at a higher rate. Penalty was also sustained because the petitioner described the goods differently in declarations and invoices while they were not covered by its registration certificate, amounting to concealment and false or incorrect particulars under the penalty provision. The plea of a mere rate dispute and breach of natural justice was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:36:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 687 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768773</link>
      <description>Goods must clearly satisfy the statutory description of an IT product or capital goods to qualify for the concessional 5% rate; items such as smart tables, display counters, leaflet holders and similar display fixtures were held not to fall within the specified entry or the definition of capital goods, and were therefore taxable under the residuary entry at a higher rate. Penalty was also sustained because the petitioner described the goods differently in declarations and invoices while they were not covered by its registration certificate, amounting to concealment and false or incorrect particulars under the penalty provision. The plea of a mere rate dispute and breach of natural justice was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>