Burden of proving genuine interstate purchases failed where invoices and banking entries did not show actual movement of goods.

The burden of proving genuineness of interstate wheat purchases and actual movement of goods remained on the dealer, and mere invoices, banking entries or statutory forms were insufficient. On the record, vehicle particulars such as Jeep, Tractor, Motorcycle and Bulldozer entries, together with survey findings, supported an adverse inference and were not rebutted by cogent evidence. The dealer also failed to produce route details, freight records, acknowledgements of receipt or other reliable proof of physical transport from Delhi to the place of business. The statutory burden under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was therefore not discharged, and the purchases were not established as bona fide.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionist discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the interstate wheat purchases and the actual physical movement of goods so as to dislodge the adverse inference drawn from the vehicle details and survey findings.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the dealer's claim that wheat was purchased from Delhi through disclosed transactions and banking channels. The record, however, showed that the vehicle numbers furnished in support of transportation included Jeep, Tractor, Motorcycle and Bulldozer entries, and no cogent material was produced to rebut that verification. The Court applied the statutory burden of proof under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and followed the settled principle that production of invoices, forms or banking entries does not by itself prove bona fide purchase unless actual movement and genuineness of the transaction are established. The revisionist failed to produce material showing the delivery route, acknowledgement of receipt, freight details or any reliable evidence of physical transport from Delhi to the place of business.

Conclusion: The revisionist failed to prove the actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of the claimed purchases, and the adverse inference sustained.

---