State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Facts:
The respondent purchasing dealers claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases made from various sellers. The Assessing Officer disallowed ITC on the ground that several selling dealers were deregistered, had not filed returns, or denied transactions, raising doubts about genuineness. The first Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance. However, the Tribunal and High Court allowed ITC primarily on the basis of invoices and payments through cheques.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the burden under Section 70 lies on the purchasing dealer to prove the genuineness of transactions. Mere production of invoices or payment through banking channels is not sufficient. The dealer must establish actual physical movement of goods and provide supporting evidence such as transport details, delivery acknowledgment, and seller details. Since the purchasing dealers failed to discharge this burden, the Court set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders and restored the disallowance of ITC by the Assessing Officer.
Cases Referred by Court:
• Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala (2009) 19 VST 84 (SC)
• Bhagadia Brothers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
• Madhav Steel Corporation v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
• Shreeji Impex v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Other Case Law
Samarpan Jain vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Whether an Advocate who files a statutory GST appeal on behalf of his client and makes pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax from the client's Electronic Credit Ledger by utilizing Input Tax Credit — in accordance with his professional understanding of the
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of U.P., s...
Read MoreMahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing & Oil Industries v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Challenge to constitutional validity of restriction on input tax set-off based on actual payment of tax by selling dealer (Section involved: Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002)
Facts The petitioner, a registered dealer under the MVAT Act, claimed input...
Read MoreOm Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors.
Cancellation of GST registration on vague show cause notice – Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10....
Read More