Input tax credit claims require cogent proof of genuine purchases and goods movement; invoices and bank payments alone are insufficient.

A dealer claiming input tax credit under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act must prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction and the actual movement of goods with cogent evidence. The Court noted that invoices, e-UPass details, banking payments and portal entries showing the selling dealer's status do not, by themselves, discharge that burden. Applying the governing proof standard, the Tribunal's assumption that the burden had shifted to the revenue could not stand in its original form, and the remand was modified so the assessing authority would complete the proceedings under the correct legal standard, with liberty to place additional material on record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dealer claiming input tax credit discharged the burden under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by producing invoices, portal details, e-UPass and banking records. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order remitting the matter to the assessing authority could be sustained in the light of the law governing proof of genuineness of input tax credit claims.

Issue (i): Whether the dealer claiming input tax credit discharged the burden under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by producing invoices, portal details, e-UPass and banking records.

Analysis: Section 70 places the burden on the purchasing dealer to prove that the claim for input tax credit is correct. The governing principle is that the dealer must establish genuineness of the transactions and actual movement of goods by cogent material. Mere invoices, payment through banking channels, and portal entries reflecting the selling dealer's status are not, by themselves, sufficient to discharge that burden. The Court also applied the rule stated by the Supreme Court that the purchasing dealer must produce supporting material beyond the invoice and payment record.

Conclusion: The burden was not treated as discharged merely on the basis of invoices, e-UPass and banking particulars.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order remitting the matter to the assessing authority could be sustained in the light of the law governing proof of genuineness of input tax credit claims.

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the initial burden had been discharged and that the authorities had to disprove entitlement, but that approach was required to be aligned with the later binding interpretation of Section 70. In that view, the remand could not stand in the form in which it was made. The matter was therefore directed to be completed by the assessing authority in accordance with the governing law, while leaving the parties free to place additional material on record.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was modified and the remand proceedings were directed to be concluded according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded only to a limited extent, with the Tribunal's directions being adjusted so that the assessing authority would complete the remand proceedings under the correct legal standard for proving input tax credit claims.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer claiming input tax credit under Section 70 must independently prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction and the movement of goods by cogent evidence; invoices, banking payments and portal-generated particulars alone do not shift the burden to the revenue.

---