https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209645 The court held that the purchasing dealer cannot be held liable for the non-payment of tax by the selling dealer unless there is evidence of fraud, collusion, or connivance. Section 8(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and Rules 20(1) and 20(4) of the Rules were found constitutional but should be applied fairly. The assessment order dated March 15, 2007, was set aside due to lack of proper inquiry and a pre-determined decision, with the cases remanded for fresh assessment. The writ petitions were partly allowed, emphasizing the need for a just application of tax credit rules. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209645 The court held that the purchasing dealer cannot be held liable for the non-payment of tax by the selling dealer unless there is evidence of fraud, collusion, or connivance. Section 8(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and Rules 20(1) and 20(4) of the Rules were found constitutional but should be applied fairly. The assessment order dated March 15, 2007, was set aside due to lack of proper inquiry and a pre-determined decision, with the cases remanded for fresh assessment. The writ petitions were partly allowed, emphasizing the need for a just application of tax credit rules. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209645