Input tax credit depends on valid invoices and proof of genuine purchase; writ interference was refused on factual findings.

Input tax credit under the A.P. VAT Act is available only on possession of a valid tax invoice and satisfaction of the statutory conditions, and the assessing authority may verify whether the sale was genuine, goods were delivered, and the invoice was issued by a registered dealer. The burden lies on the dealer claiming credit to prove eligibility. Here, the dealer failed to respond to the show-cause notice or produce evidence of delivery, payment, or genuineness, so the disallowance of credit was sustained. The HC also declined to interfere under Article 226 because it would not reappreciate factual findings absent an apparent error of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to input tax credit on the strength of tax invoices despite the selling dealer not reflecting the transactions in its returns, and whether the assessment order disallowing such credit warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Input tax credit under the A.P. VAT Act is available only when the dealer is in possession of a valid tax invoice issued by a VAT dealer and the statutory conditions are satisfied. The Rules require the invoice to contain specified particulars, and the assessing authority is not precluded from examining whether the underlying sale was genuine, whether the goods were actually delivered, and whether the invoice was in fact issued by a registered dealer. Section 16 places the burden on the dealer claiming the credit to prove eligibility. In the present case, the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or adduce evidence to establish physical delivery, payment of consideration, or genuineness of the transaction. The Court also held that, in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, it would not reappreciate factual findings of the assessing authority absent an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The denial of input tax credit and the assessment order were upheld, and no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction.

---