The assessee had claimed ITC in respect of goods purchased from registered suppliers. The Department contended that the claim of ITC was wrongful and sought to recover the ITC wrongly claimed and also levied penalty. The

Answer 4A(iii) Input Tax credit is admissible subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down under section 16(2) CGST Act. Among the conditions, the receipt of underlying goods and services and possession of accompanying tax invoice are prime conditions. Section 155 of the CGST Act provides that where any person claims that he is eligible for input tax credit under this Act, the burden of proving such claim shall lie on such person. This position has also been validated by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Malik Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [Writ Tax No. 1237 of 2021 dated October 18, 2023] wherein the Allahabad High Court held that the scheme of ITC was introduced to avoid cascading effect of tax and to avoid double taxation. As per Section 16(2) of the UPGST Act, the registered dealer can avail ITC only when the conditions under Section 16 are fulfilled. The proceedings can be initiated against the Petitioner for ITC wrongly availed or utilised by any reason or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Further, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023 dated March 13, 2023) the court noted, the primary burden is upon Petitioner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actual transaction and physical movement of goods have taken place. In particular, the petitioner is required to furnish the details of the selling dealer, vehicle number, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, Tax Invoices and payment particulars, etc. to prove and establish the actual physical movement of the goods. Furnishing details of the Tax Invoice, E-Way bill, and Goods Receipt are not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction beyond a reasonable doubt, for availing ITC. However, the list of documents mentioned by the High Court cannot be taken as a mandatory list of documents which every assessee is liable to produce to sustain the ITC. In this particular case, the legal provisions do not specify the kind of evidence which the recipient is required to produce to prove receipt of goods and services. The courts have observed that the evidence should be such that genuineness of the transaction should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, in case of M/s. Kiri Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2022), the Gujarat High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) should be allowed when a company presents valid invoices, evidence of payment, and documentation of goods receipt. The court ruled that denying ITC without substantial evidence of irregularity or fraud is arbitrary and against the principles of the GST regime. In the present case, the Department has not alleged any specific wrong in respect of the given transaction. While, the assessee has produced plethora of documents including the payment proof to evidence the genuineness. In this background, the assessee may prefer appeal before the next authority or file writ petition challenging the order.