https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395464 A purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit merely because the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled after the sale. The writ petitions were entertained on merits despite the availability of an appellate remedy. However, the credit claim still required factual substantiation, and the petitioner's invoice-wise and movement-related evidence was found insufficient on the existing record. Applying the preponderance of probability standard, the Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration so the assessing authority could re-examine the evidence and determine whether the burden of proof had been discharged. en-us Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395464 A purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit merely because the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled after the sale. The writ petitions were entertained on merits despite the availability of an appellate remedy. However, the credit claim still required factual substantiation, and the petitioner's invoice-wise and movement-related evidence was found insufficient on the existing record. Applying the preponderance of probability standard, the Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration so the assessing authority could re-examine the evidence and determine whether the burden of proof had been discharged. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395464