https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257148 Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework could not be denied merely because the selling dealer allegedly failed to remit tax, where the purchasing dealer had furnished the prescribed purchase particulars and the vendor was a registered dealer. Section 19 and Rule 10(2) required proof of tax payment in the prescribed manner, but Section 19(16) was treated as dealing only with provisional credit and not as authority to reverse credit on that limited ground. The Madras HC set aside the orders reversing input tax credit and rejecting rectification, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:57:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257148 Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework could not be denied merely because the selling dealer allegedly failed to remit tax, where the purchasing dealer had furnished the prescribed purchase particulars and the vendor was a registered dealer. Section 19 and Rule 10(2) required proof of tax payment in the prescribed manner, but Section 19(16) was treated as dealing only with provisional credit and not as authority to reverse credit on that limited ground. The Madras HC set aside the orders reversing input tax credit and rejecting rectification, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257148