Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Girish Pravinbhai Rathod (Jay Ambey) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deven Parikh with learned advocate Mr. Nirav P. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. P.Y. Divyewshwar for the respondents.
2. Having regard to the controversy in the narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling Goods and Service Tax.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 The Petitioner Is In the business of manufacturing of fusible interlining cloth, which is used in cuffs, collars, etc. Prior to 1988, the goods were classified under various Chapters. To clarify the issue pertaining to classification, the department had issued Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1 dated 2.9.1988. By way of aforesaid circular, it is clarified that fabrics partially coated with plastics and bearing designs are excluded from p
The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act must align with their actual characteristics, particularly distinguishing between fully and partially coated fabrics.
The court established that woven fabrics, regardless of raw material, are classified as textiles under GST, ensuring uniformity in tax treatment across similar products.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the product in question is made from plastic granules and cannot be treated as textile articles, as uniformly adopted by the Appellate Authori....
The classification of goods for tax purposes must align with common parlance, and the burden of proof rests with the revenue authority to substantiate its claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Additional Duties of Excise Act to determine the tax liability of specific g....
Tax exemption for HDPE woven fabrics requires actual levy of additional duty; nil rate does not equate to exemption under sales tax law.
Exclusion from payment of customs duty – When goods are excluded from a particular Chapter, “pull in” through a note has to be narrowly construed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article