TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the purchasing dealer claiming input tax credit under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was required to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction by more than invoices and cheque payments, including actual physical movement of goods and supporting material.
Analysis: Section 70 places the burden squarely on the dealer claiming input tax credit to prove that the claim is correct. Mere production of tax invoices or proof of payment by cheque does not, by itself, discharge that burden. The purchasing dealer must establish the genuineness of the transaction by showing, in addition to invoices and payment particulars, supporting material such as the identity and address of the selling dealer, vehicle details for delivery, freight payment, acknowledgement of delivery, and other evidence of actual movement of goods. Rules 27 and 29 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 only deal with issuance and particulars of tax invoices and do not dispense with proof of genuine transactions. The reliance on decisions construing different statutory provisions was held to be inapposite.
Conclusion: The purchasing dealers failed to discharge the burden under Section 70 and were not entitled to input tax credit; the allowance of such credit by the Tribunal and the High Court was unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
