https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258728 Input tax credit could not be reversed merely because the selling dealers failed to remit tax, where the purchasing dealer had complied with the statutory requirements and shown tax paid on purchases. Section 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Rules were treated as protecting the purchaser in such circumstances, while the seller's non-remittance was a matter for action against the seller. Section 19(16) was not read as authorising cancellation of credit on that ground alone. The orders confirming reversal of input tax credit were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258728 Input tax credit could not be reversed merely because the selling dealers failed to remit tax, where the purchasing dealer had complied with the statutory requirements and shown tax paid on purchases. Section 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Rules were treated as protecting the purchaser in such circumstances, while the seller's non-remittance was a matter for action against the seller. Section 19(16) was not read as authorising cancellation of credit on that ground alone. The orders confirming reversal of input tax credit were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258728