<?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>2020 (5) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395309</link>
    <description>Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to remit tax collected from the purchaser, where the purchase is genuine and no fraud, bogus invoices, or non-existent vendors are shown. The burden remains on the dealer claiming credit to establish that the claim is correct and the transactions are valid and genuine, but the revisional authority must examine the statutory framework and evidence before sustaining denial. As prior verification had supported allowance of the credit and the denial was not founded on any finding of fictitious transactions, the revisional order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2020 11:34:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395309</link>
      <description>Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to remit tax collected from the purchaser, where the purchase is genuine and no fraud, bogus invoices, or non-existent vendors are shown. The burden remains on the dealer claiming credit to establish that the claim is correct and the transactions are valid and genuine, but the revisional authority must examine the statutory framework and evidence before sustaining denial. As prior verification had supported allowance of the credit and the denial was not founded on any finding of fictitious transactions, the revisional order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>