Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.51 seconds)Section 29 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs M/S Centum Industries on 31 July, 2014
The said judgment of Centum (supra) was held in a
different context, wherein the issue was failure to claim
input tax credit in the tax periods in which purchases
were effected and the claim made in the subsequent
periods. In that context, it was held by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court that the claim cannot be made
subsequently, but in the instant case, the issue involved is
altogether different. The main ground for denying the
input tax credit is that the VAT-100 returns filed by the
selling dealers are not traceable under EFS. It is not in
dispute that the returns/invoices filed by the assessee are
genuine and the same are accounted in his books of
accounts. Even if we assume the burden of proof lies on
the asseessee to establish the proof of the tax deposited by
his selling dealer, the same is not contemplated under
Section 70 of the Act, as contended by the learned AGA.
: 12 :
What is contemplated under Section 70 of the Act is, for
the purposes of payment or assessment of tax or any
claim to input tax under the Act, the burden of proving
that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax, or any
claim to deduction of input tax is correct, shall lie on such
dealer. Be that as it may, it is not relevant to consider the
issue on this aspect at present.
1