Section 70 of the KVAT, 2003 — Input Tax Credit —–- The High Court has dismissed the revision applications preferred by the revenue and as such has allowed the ITC claimed by the respective purchasing dealers. The court observed that the provisions of Section 70, stipulate that the burden of proving that the ITC claim is correct lies upon the purchasing dealer. Merely because the dealer claiming such ITC claims that he is a bona fide purchaser is not enough and sufficient. Such a burden of proof cannot get shifted on the revenue. The dealer claiming ITC has to prove beyond doubt the actual transaction. Mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden as per section 70 of the Act, 2003. In the present case, the respective purchasing dealer/s has/have produced either the invoices or payment by cheques to claim ITC. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the transactions by giving cogent reasons on the basis of the evidence and material on record. In none of the cases, the concerned purchasing dealers have produced any further supporting material. Therefore the concerned purchasing dealers failed to discharge the burden cast upon them under Section 70 of the Act. 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, is erroneous. Merely because the tax invoice as per Rule 27 and Rule 29 might have been produced, that by itself cannot be said to be proving the actual physical movement of the goods, which is required to be proved.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority and restored the orders passed by the Assessing Officer denying the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers.