https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198868 Section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act did not require input tax credit to be claimed only in the month of the selling dealer's invoice. The court read the provision in light of the VAT scheme, which is to avoid cascading tax and preserve legitimate set-off, and held that a rigid invoice-month rule would defeat that object. It further treated the 2015 amendment, allowing credit for purchases in the preceding five tax periods, as clarificatory because it resolved ambiguity and matched existing accounting practice. The impugned orders and demands were therefore quashed. en-us Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198868 Section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act did not require input tax credit to be claimed only in the month of the selling dealer's invoice. The court read the provision in light of the VAT scheme, which is to avoid cascading tax and preserve legitimate set-off, and held that a rigid invoice-month rule would defeat that object. It further treated the 2015 amendment, allowing credit for purchases in the preceding five tax periods, as clarificatory because it resolved ambiguity and matched existing accounting practice. The impugned orders and demands were therefore quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198868