https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325655 Refund rejection could not be sustained where the authority went beyond Section 22(12)(db) of the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003. That provision denies input tax credit or rebate only if purchases are made from a registered dealer found not to have existed at the relevant address; it does not require the dealer or exporter to verify the existence of the seller's sellers. The authority also relied on supposed non-existence of registered dealers despite the departmental website showing their registrations as valid and operative. Those extraneous considerations could not support rejection of the refund claim, and the constitutional challenge to the provision was left open. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325655 Refund rejection could not be sustained where the authority went beyond Section 22(12)(db) of the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003. That provision denies input tax credit or rebate only if purchases are made from a registered dealer found not to have existed at the relevant address; it does not require the dealer or exporter to verify the existence of the seller's sellers. The authority also relied on supposed non-existence of registered dealers despite the departmental website showing their registrations as valid and operative. Those extraneous considerations could not support rejection of the refund claim, and the constitutional challenge to the provision was left open. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325655