<?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 (9) TMI 462 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332201</link>
    <description>Rule 20(3)(a) does not require a tax invoice for notional input tax credit on used or second hand vehicles; satisfactory documentary evidence proving the actual purchase price is enough. However, the provision must be read consistently with the parent VAT Act, so the credit is available only where the vehicle had earlier suffered VAT at its initial registration in the State. A construction extending the benefit to vehicles never subjected to VAT would exceed the enabling Act and render the rule ultra vires. The assessment was therefore interfered with only to the extent of rejecting the claim for want of a tax invoice and remitted for fresh consideration on the permitted proof and prior VAT incidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 462 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332201</link>
      <description>Rule 20(3)(a) does not require a tax invoice for notional input tax credit on used or second hand vehicles; satisfactory documentary evidence proving the actual purchase price is enough. However, the provision must be read consistently with the parent VAT Act, so the credit is available only where the vehicle had earlier suffered VAT at its initial registration in the State. A construction extending the benefit to vehicles never subjected to VAT would exceed the enabling Act and render the rule ultra vires. The assessment was therefore interfered with only to the extent of rejecting the claim for want of a tax invoice and remitted for fresh consideration on the permitted proof and prior VAT incidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>