https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782327 Contemporaneous e-way bill data, territorial cross-verification and transport particulars showed that the alleged sales did not involve genuine movement of goods, so the transactions were treated as bogus. On that basis, issuance of false invoices to facilitate input tax credit claims was established, and the penalty under Section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was sustained. The challenge to the bill trading and bogus transaction finding failed because the petitioner did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the disputed transport details, and the claimed input tax credit under Section 31 was not accepted. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782327 Contemporaneous e-way bill data, territorial cross-verification and transport particulars showed that the alleged sales did not involve genuine movement of goods, so the transactions were treated as bogus. On that basis, issuance of false invoices to facilitate input tax credit claims was established, and the penalty under Section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was sustained. The challenge to the bill trading and bogus transaction finding failed because the petitioner did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the disputed transport details, and the claimed input tax credit under Section 31 was not accepted. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782327