https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260378 The court held in favor of the appellant, ruling that the deduction for the transaction represented by form ST-35 was wrongly disallowed. The court emphasized that the selling dealer's duty is limited to ensuring the purchaser is a registered dealer and the goods are specified in the registration certificate, not verifying the purchaser's use of the goods. The court set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, stating that adverse inferences against the selling dealer without evidence of collusion are impermissible. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:06:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260378 The court held in favor of the appellant, ruling that the deduction for the transaction represented by form ST-35 was wrongly disallowed. The court emphasized that the selling dealer's duty is limited to ensuring the purchaser is a registered dealer and the goods are specified in the registration certificate, not verifying the purchaser's use of the goods. The court set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, stating that adverse inferences against the selling dealer without evidence of collusion are impermissible. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260378