https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254567 Under the A.P. VAT Act, the extended limitation period for wilful evasion applied even though the notice did not expressly cite Section 21(5), because the notice and assessment order together clearly alleged bogus input tax credit, false invoices, and suppression of purchases, giving a fair opportunity to answer. No breach of natural justice arose from not producing the selling dealers for cross-examination where they were untraceable and the petitioner's documents were suspect. Input tax credit was denied because possession of invoices alone does not establish a genuine taxable sale, and the assessing authority could examine whether the transactions were sham. The HC also declined writ interference, holding that it would not re-appreciate evidence supporting the assessment. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254567 Under the A.P. VAT Act, the extended limitation period for wilful evasion applied even though the notice did not expressly cite Section 21(5), because the notice and assessment order together clearly alleged bogus input tax credit, false invoices, and suppression of purchases, giving a fair opportunity to answer. No breach of natural justice arose from not producing the selling dealers for cross-examination where they were untraceable and the petitioner's documents were suspect. Input tax credit was denied because possession of invoices alone does not establish a genuine taxable sale, and the assessing authority could examine whether the transactions were sham. The HC also declined writ interference, holding that it would not re-appreciate evidence supporting the assessment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254567