Input Tax Credit requires proof of genuine purchases and goods movement, not invoices and payment records alone.

Input Tax Credit cannot be sustained on invoices and RTGS or cheque payment details alone when the statutory burden lies on the assessee to prove the purchase transaction. The analysis treats Ecom Gill as applicable because the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 burden provision was pari materia, and it requires proof of the genuineness of the purchase and the actual physical movement of goods through relevant supporting material, including transport particulars. Mere documentary payment evidence is insufficient without corroboration of delivery and transportation, and the Tribunal's view allowing credit on invoices and payment details alone was stated to be contrary to that position.

---

---

Issues: Whether Input Tax Credit could be sustained on the basis of invoices and RTGS payment details alone, without proof of the actual transaction and transportation of goods.

Analysis: The burden of proving entitlement to Input Tax Credit lay on the assessee under the statutory scheme. The decision in Ecom Gill was treated as applicable because the burden provision under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was pari materia with the Karnataka provision considered there. Mere production of invoices or proof of payment by cheque or RTGS was held insufficient; the assessee was required to establish the genuineness of the purchase transaction and the actual physical movement of goods by relevant supporting material, including transport-related particulars. The Tribunal's conclusion that Input Tax Credit could be granted only on invoices and payment details was found to be contrary to that legal position.

Conclusion: The grant of Input Tax Credit on the existing material was unsustainable and the Tribunal's order was quashed and set aside for fresh decision.

---