https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344891 Input tax credit could not be reversed against the purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to reflect the transaction in monthly returns, as earlier Division Bench precedent barred fastening that liability on the buyer alone. The same principle applied where the selling dealer's registration had been cancelled: cancellation or de-registration by itself did not justify reversal of credit or demand of tax from the purchasing dealer. The court therefore interfered only with the two input-tax-credit related demands and penalties, while leaving the remaining assessment intact and preserving the assessee's statutory remedy on the other disputed heads. en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344891 Input tax credit could not be reversed against the purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to reflect the transaction in monthly returns, as earlier Division Bench precedent barred fastening that liability on the buyer alone. The same principle applied where the selling dealer's registration had been cancelled: cancellation or de-registration by itself did not justify reversal of credit or demand of tax from the purchasing dealer. The court therefore interfered only with the two input-tax-credit related demands and penalties, while leaving the remaining assessment intact and preserving the assessee's statutory remedy on the other disputed heads. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344891