https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332147 Input tax credit under the VAT scheme was a statutory concession, so the purchase price for reversal under Section 19(20) had to be the invoice price shown in the tax invoice, not a later net price after discount; the interpretation was decided against the assessee. Section 19(20) was also held constitutionally valid because the Legislature could regulate concessionary credit to protect revenue and curb misuse, and no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was shown. However, although fiscal amendments may be retrospective, this provision could not validly operate from 01.01.2007 because it imposed a new burden affecting past credit positions without sufficient justification; retrospective effect was struck down in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332147 Input tax credit under the VAT scheme was a statutory concession, so the purchase price for reversal under Section 19(20) had to be the invoice price shown in the tax invoice, not a later net price after discount; the interpretation was decided against the assessee. Section 19(20) was also held constitutionally valid because the Legislature could regulate concessionary credit to protect revenue and curb misuse, and no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was shown. However, although fiscal amendments may be retrospective, this provision could not validly operate from 01.01.2007 because it imposed a new burden affecting past credit positions without sufficient justification; retrospective effect was struck down in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332147