https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759515 The Karnataka HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 107(11) of the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, which rejected Input Tax Credit claims. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority illegally proceeded against the purchaser while ignoring tax invoices and payments, without taking action against the supplier. The HC held that purchasing dealers must prove actual physical movement of goods to claim ITC. Since the vehicles used for transportation were fraudulent and unregistered, and the supplier failed to pay tax to the government, the burden under Section 155 was not discharged. The HC confirmed that revenue authorities can recover from purchasers when suppliers default on tax payments, upholding the rejection of ITC claims as legally justified. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2025 13:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759515 The Karnataka HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 107(11) of the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, which rejected Input Tax Credit claims. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority illegally proceeded against the purchaser while ignoring tax invoices and payments, without taking action against the supplier. The HC held that purchasing dealers must prove actual physical movement of goods to claim ITC. Since the vehicles used for transportation were fraudulent and unregistered, and the supplier failed to pay tax to the government, the burden under Section 155 was not discharged. The HC confirmed that revenue authorities can recover from purchasers when suppliers default on tax payments, upholding the rejection of ITC claims as legally justified. Case-Laws GST Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759515