<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (6) TMI 630 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328921</link>
    <description>Input tax credit under the A.P. VAT Act is available only on possession of a valid tax invoice and satisfaction of the statutory conditions, and the assessing authority may verify whether the sale was genuine, goods were delivered, and the invoice was issued by a registered dealer. The burden lies on the dealer claiming credit to prove eligibility. Here, the dealer failed to respond to the show-cause notice or produce evidence of delivery, payment, or genuineness, so the disallowance of credit was sustained. The HC also declined to interfere under Article 226 because it would not reappreciate factual findings absent an apparent error of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:55:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 630 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328921</link>
      <description>Input tax credit under the A.P. VAT Act is available only on possession of a valid tax invoice and satisfaction of the statutory conditions, and the assessing authority may verify whether the sale was genuine, goods were delivered, and the invoice was issued by a registered dealer. The burden lies on the dealer claiming credit to prove eligibility. Here, the dealer failed to respond to the show-cause notice or produce evidence of delivery, payment, or genuineness, so the disallowance of credit was sustained. The HC also declined to interfere under Article 226 because it would not reappreciate factual findings absent an apparent error of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>