Input-tax credit requires proof of genuine purchases; failure to prove transactions defeats the claim despite a cross-examination grievance.

Input-tax credit was denied because the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the underlying purchases and did not discharge the burden of showing payment and authenticity of the transactions with reliable evidence. The absence of cheque proof or other supporting material meant the alleged purchases remained unsubstantiated, so the claim could not succeed. The complaint that the seller's representative was not offered for cross-examination did not by itself displace the concurrent factual findings, which were based on appreciation of evidence and were not shown to be perverse. No substantial question of law arose, and the denial of input-tax credit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim input-tax credit on the alleged purchases from the seller and whether denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the seller's representative vitiated the assessment and appellate orders.

Analysis: The claim of input-tax credit rested on the assessee's asserted purchases from M/s. Vikas Trading Company. The Court held that the burden lay on the assessee to establish the genuineness of those purchases and to prove payment and authenticity of the transactions by producing supporting evidence. In the absence of proof of payment by cheque or other reliable material, and in view of the finding that the purchases were not substantiated, the assessee could not succeed merely by complaining that cross-examination of the seller's representative was not afforded. The Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The denial of input-tax credit was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the assessee did not discharge the burden of proving genuine purchases, and the concurrent factual findings remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to input-tax credit must be supported by proof of the genuineness of the underlying transaction, and where the assessee fails to discharge that burden, a mere grievance about non-cross-examination does not by itself invalidate the concurrent findings.

---