https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409383 A dealer whose quarterly turnover crossed the statutory threshold under Section 17(3) was required to seek VAT registration within the prescribed time. Because the registration application was filed beyond that period, the statutory liability to register arose first, and Section 4(1) then attracted tax liability at the VAT rate. On that basis, the assessment treating the petitioner as a VAT dealer was consistent with the statutory scheme, and denial of input tax credit under Section 49(2) was also treated as lawful. The challenge to Sections 17(3) and 49(2) therefore failed, and the assessment order was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409383 A dealer whose quarterly turnover crossed the statutory threshold under Section 17(3) was required to seek VAT registration within the prescribed time. Because the registration application was filed beyond that period, the statutory liability to register arose first, and Section 4(1) then attracted tax liability at the VAT rate. On that basis, the assessment treating the petitioner as a VAT dealer was consistent with the statutory scheme, and denial of input tax credit under Section 49(2) was also treated as lawful. The challenge to Sections 17(3) and 49(2) therefore failed, and the assessment order was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409383