https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330561 Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be reversed against a purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to file returns, remit tax, or later became a cancelled dealer, where the purchaser had complied with the prescribed return and payment requirements. The court applied Section 19(1) and Rule 10(2) to hold that, once the buying dealer establishes statutory compliance and purchases from a registered dealer, the Revenue must proceed against the defaulting seller rather than fasten the seller's non-remittance on the purchaser. The assessment orders and notices based on reversal were therefore unsustainable, and the purchaser's credit claim was protected. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330561 Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be reversed against a purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to file returns, remit tax, or later became a cancelled dealer, where the purchaser had complied with the prescribed return and payment requirements. The court applied Section 19(1) and Rule 10(2) to hold that, once the buying dealer establishes statutory compliance and purchases from a registered dealer, the Revenue must proceed against the defaulting seller rather than fasten the seller's non-remittance on the purchaser. The assessment orders and notices based on reversal were therefore unsustainable, and the purchaser's credit claim was protected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330561