AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee impugning the order dated 30.03.2025 passed under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the Act'] by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SMR)-3, Bengaluru [Suo Motu Revisional Authority (SMR)]. 3. The following questions of law are raised for consideration; "(i) WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Appellate Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Government Revenue to invoke Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act? (ii) WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in setting aside the appeal order by modifying the appeal order restricting the Input Tax Credit?" 4. The brief facts are that the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irected to re-compute the turnover tax liability and to issue a revised demand notice. 5. Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, submits that the Appellate Authority, after examining the tax invoices issued by the selling dealers, the purchase ledger accounts, bank statements and proof of receipt of goods, held that the burden of proof under Section 70 of the Act had been discharged and accordingly granted relief. 5.1 It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the appellant had received the goods pursuant to the sales effected by the selling dealers. It is contended that unless the genuineness of the purchase transactions is doubted, the order passed by the SMR is without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee Trading Private Limited [2023 SCC Online SC 248] laid down the parameters for discharge of the burden under Section 70 of the Act. The examination undertaken by the SMR is in the light of the aforesaid judgment. Hence, it is submitted that no interference is warranted. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Assessee and learned Additional Government Advocate-Revenue. 8. The controversy in the present case relates to the discharge of the burden of proof under Section 70 of the Act. The Assessing Authority, in the reassessment proceedings, denied the ITC on the ground that the selling dealers had either not filed returns or had filed NIL returns. The ITC was also denied on the ground that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess 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 important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it/them from the concerned dealers and on which ITC have been claimed, the assessing officer is absolutel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed by the first appellate authority, the second appellate authority as well as the High Court have upset the concurrent findings given by the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority, on irrelevant considerations that producing invoices or payments through cheques are sufficient to claim ITC which, as observed hereinabove, is erroneous. As observed hereinabove, over and above the invoices and the particulars of payment, the purchasing dealer has to produce further material like 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 including actual physical movement of the goods, alleged to have been purchas....