Assessee's ITC Claim Rejected by HC Due to Lack of Evidence on Good's Movement

• Introduction of the case with mention of legal representatives for petitioner and respondents.

• Reason for entertaining the Writ Tax in the absence of a functional GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh.

• Purpose of the writ petition, which challenges the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and the subsequent confirmation by the Additional Commissioner, demanding Rs. 12,32,148 due to alleged wrong availment of input tax credit.

• Overview of the petitioner's business, including the turnover and input tax credit claimed, followed by the issuance of a show cause notice and the subsequent order demanding payment.

• The petitioner's argument that they have purchased goods in compliance with tax invoices, e-way bills, and payments made through banking channels, and that any failure by the selling dealer to pay taxes should not affect their input tax credit claim.

• Emphasis on the intention of the GST regime to avoid double taxation and the petitioner's claim that denying the input tax credit would result in double taxation.

• Reference to relevant court judgments that support the petitioner's argument and a request for the writ petition to be allowed or remanded for further consideration.

• The response from the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supporting the impugned orders.

• Arguments made by the respondent, emphasizing the conditions for availing input tax credit and the need for the petitioner to prove the actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of transactions.

• References to legal precedents supporting the respondent's position.

• The Court's assessment of the case, considering the provisions of the UP GST Act and the burden of proof on the dealer to establish the actual transaction and physical movement of goods.

• Conclusion by the Court that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the actual movement of goods and the genuineness of the transaction, leading to the initiation of proceedings.

• Mention of the recent judgment by the Apex Court in a similar case that emphasizes the dealer's responsibility to prove the actual transaction and physical movement of goods.

• Reference to another case from the Patna High Court reiterating the importance of proving the actual transaction and physical movement of goods.

• A reference to a previous judgment by the same Court underscoring the necessity of proving the actual physical movement of goods for availing benefits.

• The Court's observation that the petitioner's reliance on judgments from the Calcutta High Court and this Court does not support their case.

• The Court's dismissal of the writ petition, stating that no interference is warranted in the impugned orders. Malik Traders Vs. State of U.P.