https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298267 Input tax credit could not be denied where the purchaser dealer substantiated the transactions through tax invoices, stock register, sales and purchase accounts, bank statements, cheque realisation details, bank certificates, transport documents and the selling dealers' returns and tax-payment proof. On that material, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof was not perverse, and a challenge seeking reappreciation of evidence did not raise a substantial question of law. A purchaser who had established payment of VAT to the selling dealer and supporting documents could not be denied credit merely because the seller allegedly failed to remit tax; the Revenue's remedy lay against the selling dealer. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:25:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298267 Input tax credit could not be denied where the purchaser dealer substantiated the transactions through tax invoices, stock register, sales and purchase accounts, bank statements, cheque realisation details, bank certificates, transport documents and the selling dealers' returns and tax-payment proof. On that material, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof was not perverse, and a challenge seeking reappreciation of evidence did not raise a substantial question of law. A purchaser who had established payment of VAT to the selling dealer and supporting documents could not be denied credit merely because the seller allegedly failed to remit tax; the Revenue's remedy lay against the selling dealer. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298267