TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 87/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) U/s 28 (2) (ii) of UP VAT Act, 2008. 3. The present revision has been admitted vide order dated 27.9.2019 on the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of revision. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Atta, Maida, Suji and Choker from Wheat. He submits that for manufacture of aforesaid goods, the revisionist purchased the raw material i.e. wheat from inside the State of UP as well as outside the State of UP after paying due tax thereof. He submits that the revisionist disclosed the purchases of wheat from Delhi through Form 38 E-Sancharan valuing Rs. 10,59,10,067/- and the said purchases of wheat were dispatc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 19.7.2019 and the Tribunal has fixed the suppressed purchase of wheat from Delhi at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and imposed tax liability of Rs. 6,00,000/-. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that purchases of wheat made from Delhi were duly disclosed, after issuing Form 38 and further the transactions were made through banking channel, therefore, the authorities were not justified in drawing adverse inference against the revisionist. He further submits that the goods i.e. wheat when purchased, due Mandi Parchis were issued on which vehicle number was mentioned, which is not in dispute but in spite of allowing the appeal in toto, the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal. He submits that proceedings against the revisionist has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. It is not in dispute that the revisionist being engaged in the business of production of Atta, Maida, Suji, Choker etc, for which the basic raw material is wheat. The revisionist has shown the purchase of wheat from Delhi to which Form 38 was issued and payments were made through banking channel. The record shows that the purchases of wheat which were transported, were made from the vehicles found to be Jeep, Tractor, Motorcycle, Bulldozer etc to which no cogent material has been brought on record by the revisionist to rebut the same. Further nothing has been brought on record to show the actual movement of goods from Delhi to the place of business of the revisionist. Further at the time of survey, certain adverse material was found an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he registration numbers of the said vehicles, it was found that some of the vehicle numbers were not in the official website of the Motor Vehicle Department and some of the vehicle numbers were found to be of two-wheeler, small three-wheeler, passenger vehicles, etc. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party - dealer cannot be accepted merely on production of invoices or payments made through banking channel or forms issued by the Mandi Parishad. For claiming the benefit, the dealer was also required to prove beyond doubt that actual movement of goods was there. Once most of the vehicle numbers provided by the opposite party - dealer were found to be fictitious, the movement of goods cannot be accepted. 12. Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the burden of proving that the ITC claim is correct lies upon the purchasing dealer claiming such ITC. Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. Merely because the dealer claiming such ITC claims that he is a bona fide purchaser is not enough and sufficient. The burden of proving the correctness of ITC remains upon the dealer claiming such ITC. Such a burden of proof cannot get shifted on the revenue. Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The dealer claiming ITC has to prove beyond doubt the actual transaction which can be pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r liable to take at a lower rate, or that a deduction of input tax is available, such a dealer is liable to pay the penalty. Therefore, as observed hereinabove, for claiming ITC, genuineness of the transaction and actual physical movement of the goods are the sine qua non and the aforesaid can be proved only by furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. The purchasing dealers have to prove the actual physical movement of the goods, alleged to have been purchased from the respective dealers. If the purchasing dealer/s fails/fail to establish and prove the said impo....