Natural justice and fictitious invoices: penalty may stand where the assessee had notice and knowingly claimed input tax credit.

A Karnataka High Court discussion on penalty under the KVAT Act explains that a complaint of natural justice may fail where the assessee was put on notice of the discrepancy, replied to the allegations, and never sought the adverse material or audit report at assessment or in appeal. It also notes that penalty can be justified where the record shows fictitious invoices, non-existent or deregistered suppliers, bill traders or benami persons, and a patterned transaction trail unsupported by delivery, freight, purchase orders, or other surrounding evidence. On that factual basis, the use of false invoices to claim input tax credit supported restoration of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was denied natural justice for want of supply of adverse material and the audit report before imposition of penalty. (ii) Whether the assessee knowingly produced false invoices to claim input tax credit, justifying penalty under the KVAT Act.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was denied natural justice for want of supply of adverse material and the audit report before imposition of penalty.

Analysis: The assessee had been put on notice of the discrepancy, furnished a reply, and did not seek the adverse material or the audit report either at the assessment stage or in appeal. The record showed that the factual allegations were clearly put to the assessee and remained unanswered. In such circumstances, absence of a specific request for the material, coupled with the opportunity already afforded, negatived the complaint of procedural unfairness.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of principles of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee knowingly produced false invoices to claim input tax credit, justifying penalty under the KVAT Act.

Analysis: The authorities found that the named suppliers were non-existent or deregistered, the invoices were issued through bill traders or benami persons, the transactions were continuous and patterned, and the assessee could not explain the intermediary, delivery, freight, purchase order, or other surrounding circumstances. The material supported the conclusion that the invoices did not evidence genuine purchases and that the assessee knowingly used fictitious invoices to claim input tax credit. On that footing, the revisional authority was justified in restoring penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty for knowingly producing false invoices and claiming inadmissible input tax credit was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the revisional order imposing penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows that invoices are fictitious and the assessee knowingly relies on them to claim input tax credit, penalty may be sustained; a complaint of natural justice fails where no request for the adverse material was made despite an opportunity to reply.

---