Held -  After going through paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned adjudication order dated 19.10.2020 it clearly transpires that the respondent No.4 at paragraph 5 & 6 of its order had admitted that upon re-verification, it was found that e-way bills and computer generated measurement slip are true and genuine documents and the petitioner in the past has duly discharged its liability towards any mismatch in ITC.

In view of the afor.....

Held - Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of records available, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders and remanding these cases of the petitioners to the respondents officer concerned to consider afresh on the issue of their entitlement of benefit of input tax credit in question by considering the documents which the petitioners intend to rely in support of their claim of genu.....

Held - Considering the facts as recorded subject to further verification it cannot be said that that there was any failure on the part of the petitioners in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering the transactions in question or for verification of the genuineness of the suppliers in question.

Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of records available, these writ petitions are disposed o.....

Held - It can be seen therefrom that the assessee must have received the goods and the tax charged in respect of its supply, must have been actually paid to the Government either in cash or through utilization of input tax credit, admissible in respect of the said supply.

Therefore, if the tax had not reached the kitty of the Government, then the liability may have to be eventually borne by one party, either the seller or the buyer. In t.....

Held - On hearing learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed.

Held - The Court respectfully concurs with the above analysis and holds that in the present case, the purchasing dealer is being asked to do the impossible, i.e. to anticipate the selling dealer who will not deposit with the Government the tax collected by him from those purchasing dealer and therefore avoid transacting with such selling dealers. Alternatively, what Section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act requires the pu.....