https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788861 Graphic pictorial devices on packing material do not, by themselves, defeat a statutory exemption where the notification excludes only goods bearing a disqualifying brand name. The court treated the printed corporate name as a trade name used for compliance, not as the operative brand identifier, and found that the assessee's declaration and the department's contemporaneous knowledge supported exemption. The court also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, since the relevant packing and exemption claim had been disclosed. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788861 Graphic pictorial devices on packing material do not, by themselves, defeat a statutory exemption where the notification excludes only goods bearing a disqualifying brand name. The court treated the printed corporate name as a trade name used for compliance, not as the operative brand identifier, and found that the assessee's declaration and the department's contemporaneous knowledge supported exemption. The court also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, since the relevant packing and exemption claim had been disclosed. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws GST Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788861