Input tax refund claims cannot be rejected for lack of extra certificates when primary payment evidence is already produced.

Where a dealer seeking refund of excess unadjusted input tax produced bills and demand drafts showing payment of input tax, the initial burden of proof was held to be discharged. Under the refund procedure, the assessing authority could carry out its own verification to test genuineness and admissibility, but it could not shift that burden back to the dealer by demanding additional third-party certificates or further proof from the seller. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore quashed, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application and grant refund after necessary verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer, having produced bills and copies of demand drafts evidencing payment of input tax, was required to furnish further certificates or proof from the seller for refund of excess unadjusted input tax; and whether the assessing authority could insist on such additional proof instead of making its own verification.

Analysis: Section 11(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 recognizes credit of input tax against output tax, and Section 11(6) provides for refund of excess input tax remaining unadjusted at the end of the year. Rule 47A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 governs the refund procedure and applies Rule 47, under which the burden of proving entitlement to refund lies on the dealer, but the assessing authority may conduct such enquiry as it considers necessary to satisfy itself about the genuineness and admissibility of the claim. The dealer had produced bills and demand drafts showing payment of input tax, which were sufficient to discharge the initial burden. Any further verification was for the assessing authority to undertake by cross-checking the materials already produced, and the dealer could not be compelled to obtain additional certificates from the Forest Department.

Conclusion: The dealer had discharged the burden of proving entitlement to refund, and the insistence on further proof was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed and the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the application and grant refund of the unadjusted input tax, after necessary verification, within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer produces primary evidence showing payment of input tax, the statutory burden of proof is satisfied, and the assessing authority must itself conduct any further verification necessary for deciding refund; it cannot shift that burden by insisting on additional third-party certificates.

---