https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337253 Input tax credit could not be denied where the purchaser dealer proved payment for the purchases, movement of goods, and the existence of the selling dealers through invoices, stock records, bank statements, cheque realisation details, transport documents and returns. The Tribunal's factual finding on discharge of the burden of proof was supported by the record and was not perverse. The Court further held that once VAT is shown to have been paid to the selling dealer, the purchaser's input tax credit cannot be defeated merely because the seller allegedly failed to remit tax to the Government; any recovery action lies against the selling dealer. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:35:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337253 Input tax credit could not be denied where the purchaser dealer proved payment for the purchases, movement of goods, and the existence of the selling dealers through invoices, stock records, bank statements, cheque realisation details, transport documents and returns. The Tribunal's factual finding on discharge of the burden of proof was supported by the record and was not perverse. The Court further held that once VAT is shown to have been paid to the selling dealer, the purchaser's input tax credit cannot be defeated merely because the seller allegedly failed to remit tax to the Government; any recovery action lies against the selling dealer. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337253