https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779378 Rule 44(3)(f) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 bars transfer of TDS credit reflected in Form VAT-156 from one person to another. Because the credit had already been claimed by the main contractor, allowing the subcontractor to use it again would create duplication of credit and offend the statutory prohibition. The appellate direction to transfer the credit was therefore without jurisdiction, and the revisional order setting it aside was legally justified. The earlier relied-on decision was distinguishable because it did not consider the express bar in Rule 44(3)(f) or the prior utilisation of the same credit. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:10:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779378 Rule 44(3)(f) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 bars transfer of TDS credit reflected in Form VAT-156 from one person to another. Because the credit had already been claimed by the main contractor, allowing the subcontractor to use it again would create duplication of credit and offend the statutory prohibition. The appellate direction to transfer the credit was therefore without jurisdiction, and the revisional order setting it aside was legally justified. The earlier relied-on decision was distinguishable because it did not consider the express bar in Rule 44(3)(f) or the prior utilisation of the same credit. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779378