TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Burden of proving genuineness of ITC claims under Section 70 lies entirely on purchasing dealer, invoices alone insufficient</h1> <h3>The State of Karnataka Versus M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited</h3> The State of Karnataka Versus M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited - 2023 (72) G. S. T. L. 134 (SC), [2023] 111 G S.T.R. 1 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.2. Validity of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims by purchasing dealers.3. Burden of proof on purchasing dealers to substantiate ITC claims.Summary:Interpretation of Section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003:The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act, 2003), which stipulates that the burden of proving the correctness of an ITC claim lies on the purchasing dealer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere production of invoices or payment by cheque is insufficient to discharge this burden. The purchasing dealer must prove the actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of transactions by providing additional supporting materials such as the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle delivering the goods, payment of freight charges, and acknowledgment of delivery.Validity of ITC Claims by Purchasing Dealers:The High Court had previously allowed ITC claims by purchasing dealers based on the production of invoices and payments made through cheques. However, the Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, stating that these documents alone do not prove the genuineness of transactions or the actual movement of goods. The Supreme Court reinstated the orders of the Assessing Officer and the first Appellate Authority, which had denied ITC claims due to doubts about the genuineness of the transactions and the lack of sufficient evidence.Burden of Proof on Purchasing Dealers:The Supreme Court highlighted that under Section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003, the burden of proof is squarely on the purchasing dealer to establish the correctness of their ITC claim. This includes proving the actual transaction and the physical movement of goods, beyond just presenting invoices and payment records. The Court rejected the argument that the burden shifts to the revenue once invoices and payments are produced. The purchasing dealer must provide comprehensive evidence to substantiate the ITC claim.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the second Appellate Authority and the High Court erred in allowing ITC claims without sufficient evidence of the genuineness of transactions and actual movement of goods. The Court quashed the High Court's judgments and restored the orders of the Assessing Officer, denying ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers. The appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 