https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448683 The Special Commissioner was held competent to exercise suo motu revisional power under the West Bengal VAT law because the statutory definition and the Government notification authorised the Special Commissioner to act in the Commissioner's place; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed. Input Tax Credit was also denied because it is a statutory concession available only on strict compliance with Rule 19(8), which required payment to the selling dealer by the prescribed modes; payment to a third party on the dealer's behalf did not satisfy that condition. The writ petition was rejected and the tribunal's decision was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:31:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448683 The Special Commissioner was held competent to exercise suo motu revisional power under the West Bengal VAT law because the statutory definition and the Government notification authorised the Special Commissioner to act in the Commissioner's place; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed. Input Tax Credit was also denied because it is a statutory concession available only on strict compliance with Rule 19(8), which required payment to the selling dealer by the prescribed modes; payment to a third party on the dealer's behalf did not satisfy that condition. The writ petition was rejected and the tribunal's decision was left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448683