<?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>2019 (6) TMI 941 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381864</link>
    <description>A bona fide purchasing dealer who paid tax to registered sellers and held valid invoices was entitled to input tax credit; the seller&#039;s later failure to remit tax was not a condition precedent to the purchaser&#039;s claim. The Court distinguished genuine purchases from bogus transactions and held that, where the seller defaults, the Revenue&#039;s remedy lies against the seller rather than the purchaser. It also held that subsequent deregistration of the selling dealer does not defeat credit for earlier qualifying purchases, though post-deregistration purchases would not qualify. The reassessment orders and demand notices were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 941 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381864</link>
      <description>A bona fide purchasing dealer who paid tax to registered sellers and held valid invoices was entitled to input tax credit; the seller&#039;s later failure to remit tax was not a condition precedent to the purchaser&#039;s claim. The Court distinguished genuine purchases from bogus transactions and held that, where the seller defaults, the Revenue&#039;s remedy lies against the seller rather than the purchaser. It also held that subsequent deregistration of the selling dealer does not defeat credit for earlier qualifying purchases, though post-deregistration purchases would not qualify. The reassessment orders and demand notices were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>