2023 (3) TMI 533 - SC - CST, VAT & Sales Tax

Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Genuineness - Onus to prove / burden of proof - Interpretation of statute - Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Input Tax Credit claimed by the respective purchasing dealers - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 70, in its plain terms clearly stipulate that the burden of proving that the ITC claim is correct lies upon the purchasing dealer claiming such ITC. Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. Merely because the dealer claiming such ITC claims that he is a bona fide purchaser is not enough and sufficient. The burden of proving the correctness of ITC remains upon the dealer claiming such ITC. Such a burden of proof cannot get shifted on the revenue. Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The dealer claiming ITC has to prove beyond doubt the actual transaction which can be proved by furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc.

The genuineness of the transaction has to be proved as the burden to prove the genuineness of transaction as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 would be upon the purchasing dealer. It is observed and held that mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden as per section 70 of the Act, 2003.

In the present case, the respective purchasing dealer/s has/have produced either the invoices or payment by cheques to claim ITC. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the transactions by giving cogent reasons on the basis of the evidence and material on record. In some of the cases, the registration of the selling dealers have been cancelled or even the sale by the concerned dealers has been disputed and/or denied by the concerned dealer - over and above the invoices and the particulars of payment, the purchasing dealer has to produce further material like the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods including actual physical movement of the goods, alleged to have been purchased from the concerned dealers.

In absence of any further cogent material like furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. and the actual physical movement of the goods by producing the cogent materials, the Assessing Officer was absolutely justified in denying the ITC, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Authority. Both, the second Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have materially erred in allowing the ITC despite the concerned purchasing dealers failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority allowing the ITC are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.