GST INDIA Biz — Interpretation of burden of proof for claiming Input Tax Credit under VAT law; requirement of proving genuineness of transactions (Section involved: Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003)

State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited

Date of Order: March 13, 2026

Case Law No: GIB-SC-2023-02

Subject: Interpretation of burden of proof for claiming Input Tax Credit under VAT law; requirement of proving genuineness of transactions (Section involved: Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003)

Description:

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

Vidarbha Beverages & Ors. vs. State Tax Officer & Ors.

GST liability on assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property; scope of “supply” (Sections 7 & 74, CGST Act, 2017 read with Schedule II & III)

Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40...

Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.

forms under GST (Sections involved: Section 16(2) and Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)

Facts The appellant availed Input Tax Credit on purchases made from a suppl...

Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India & Ors.

Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer solely on account of the supplier's failure to deposit tax with the Government.

BACKGROUNDA group of petitioners (purchasing dealers) challenged Section 16(2)(c...