2019 (12) TMI 8 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - input tax credit - burden to prove - whether the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the claim of input tax credit on the payment of taxes alleged to have been made? - HELD THAT - Without examining the discharge of burden of proving, merely on the ground that no selling dealer has deposited the collected taxes, input tax credit has been denied. This factual aspect requires to be re-considered by the Assessing Authority. Even as regards denial of input tax credit relating to the purchase of old used machinery from M/s. Saibaba Industries claimed as capital goods by the assessee is not supported by any satisfactory reasons. The assessment order impugned deserves to be set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment order and demand notice disallowing input tax credit under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership concern engaged in manufacturing and reprocessing of Steel Bars and Job Work, challenged the reassessment order related to tax periods from April 2014 to March 2015. The respondent Authority disallowed input tax credit mainly due to the selling dealer not depositing the collected taxes. The petitioner contended that denial of input tax credit solely based on the selling dealer's actions is unjustified, citing a previous court ruling.

The petitioner argued that as long as the transaction is genuine and a bona fide claim for input tax credit is made, denial of credit solely due to the selling dealer's actions is unwarranted. The Additional Government Advocate, however, referred to a Division Bench ruling placing the burden of proof on the assessee. It was highlighted that in the absence of evidence of tax payment to the selling dealer, denial of input tax credit could be justified.

The court noted that the Assessing Authority denied input tax credit based on the selling dealer's failure to file monthly returns and deposit taxes. Despite the genuineness of the petitioner's purchases, the decision to deny input tax credit solely on the selling dealer's actions was deemed improper. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized that burden of proof lies on the assessee but denial of credit based solely on selling dealer's actions is not justifiable.

The court referred to a case where similar bogus selling dealers were involved in producing false invoices for input tax credit. It was stressed that the assessee must prove the correctness of the input tax credit claim, and the denial based solely on the selling dealer's actions needed reconsideration by the Assessing Authority. The court also found the denial of input tax credit related to the purchase of old machinery unsupported by satisfactory reasons.

Consequently, the court set aside the assessment order and demand notice, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the observations made. The rights and contentions of the parties were left open, and compliance was directed to be expedited. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.