<?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>Advance ruling: product classed under tariff item 38089340 as plant growth regulator, attracts 18% integrated tax</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93077</link>
    <description>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&#039;s appeal is dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2025 10:23:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2025 10:23:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Advance ruling: product classed under tariff item 38089340 as plant growth regulator, attracts 18% integrated tax</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93077</link>
      <description>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&#039;s appeal is dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2025 10:23:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>