https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168000 A State does not exceed its legislative competence by restricting input tax credit under its value added tax scheme, because withdrawal of a tax concession is not the same as imposing a tax on inter-State trade. The amendment to section 18(4)(ii) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld since it only conditioned credit availability by reference to registered dealer sales under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and did not trench upon Parliament's exclusive field under Article 246(1) read with Entry 42 of List I. The challenge failed, and the restriction on input tax credit was held valid. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168000 A State does not exceed its legislative competence by restricting input tax credit under its value added tax scheme, because withdrawal of a tax concession is not the same as imposing a tax on inter-State trade. The amendment to section 18(4)(ii) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld since it only conditioned credit availability by reference to registered dealer sales under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and did not trench upon Parliament's exclusive field under Article 246(1) read with Entry 42 of List I. The challenge failed, and the restriction on input tax credit was held valid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168000