<?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>2023 (4) TMI 912 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436886</link>
    <description>Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act is a statutory benefit that must be substantiated by the purchaser, and retrospective cancellation of the selling dealer&#039;s registration does not by itself nullify validly claimed credit. The dealer must still prove the genuineness of the transaction and, where material, the movement or delivery of goods; credit may be denied where that burden is not discharged or the claim is bogus. The 29.01.2016 amendment to the proviso to Section 19(1), which introduced stricter conditions for credit, was treated as a substantive change and therefore prospective. In writ matters involving disputed facts such as turnover, transport and purchase genuineness, statutory appellate remedies were preferred, while non-speaking orders were remitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 912 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436886</link>
      <description>Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act is a statutory benefit that must be substantiated by the purchaser, and retrospective cancellation of the selling dealer&#039;s registration does not by itself nullify validly claimed credit. The dealer must still prove the genuineness of the transaction and, where material, the movement or delivery of goods; credit may be denied where that burden is not discharged or the claim is bogus. The 29.01.2016 amendment to the proviso to Section 19(1), which introduced stricter conditions for credit, was treated as a substantive change and therefore prospective. In writ matters involving disputed facts such as turnover, transport and purchase genuineness, statutory appellate remedies were preferred, while non-speaking orders were remitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>