https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182103 The Court held that the purchasing dealer cannot be held liable for non-payment by the selling dealer if the purchasing dealer had proof of tax payment on purchases. The Court found the revocation of input tax credit based on the selling dealer's non-payment to be incorrect and directed the department to pursue the selling dealer for tax recovery. Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the alternative remedy should not prevent consideration of the petition due to the incorrectness of the revision orders. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2016 09:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182103 The Court held that the purchasing dealer cannot be held liable for non-payment by the selling dealer if the purchasing dealer had proof of tax payment on purchases. The Court found the revocation of input tax credit based on the selling dealer's non-payment to be incorrect and directed the department to pursue the selling dealer for tax recovery. Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the alternative remedy should not prevent consideration of the petition due to the incorrectness of the revision orders. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182103