The burden of proof lies with the dealer to establish the genuineness of transactions and actual movement of goods for Input Tax Credit claims under GST.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondent.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained in view of the fact that no GST Tribunal has been constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals - 1st ), Muzaffarnagar by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant proceedings under section 74 of the GST Act have wrongly been initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of iron machinery parts and hardware. In its normal course of business, the petitioner made purchase during the period 2018-19 from one M/s Krishna Trading Company, Mathura and due tax invoice, payments, etc. were made through banking channel and thereafter, Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed. He further submits that on 24.01.2019, an inspection was carried out and found that M/s Krishna Trading Company was non-existent and therefore, adverse inference has been drawn that the transactions shown by the petitioner were bogus, fictitious and fake and thereafter, impugned order dated 22.11.2021 was passed for the month of May to December, 2018 imposing tax and penalty along with interest upon the petitioner amounting to Rs. 45,21,097.75/-, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, but vide impugned order dated 01.06.2022, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

5. He further submits that the petitioner, being a registered dealer, submitted all documentary evidence, such as, tax invoice, e-way bills, bilty, before and after the loading of goods weighment slips, etc. and payments were made through banking challen, but still the authorities below have disbelieved and initiated the impugned proceedings against the petitioner. In support of this submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements various High Courts as well as the Apex Court in Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Another v. Assistant Commissioner & Others [MAT No. 1218/2023, decided on 02.08.2018], Divya Agencies v. State Tax Officer & Others [Writ Petition No. 29769/2023, decided on 12.09.2023], The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/s Juhi Alloys Limited [Central Excise Appeal No. 21/2014, decided on 15.01.2014], LI & Fung India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [Writ Petition No. 11596/2016, decided on 08.03.2017], M/s CJ Darcl Logistic Limited v. Union of India & Others [Writ Petition (T) No. 215/2022], M/s Arhaan Ferrous & Non-Ferrous Solutions Private Limited v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner & Others [Writ Petition No. 24411/2023, decided on 03.08.2023], M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. State Tax Officer [Writ Petition (MD) No. 2127/2021, decided on 24.02.2021], M/s Sri Ranganathar Valves Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [Writ Petition No. 38488/2015, decided on 02.09.2020], M/s Bright Star Plastic Industries v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others [Writ C No. 15265/2021, decided on 04.10.2021], Sanchita Kundu & Another v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others [WPA No. 4231/2022, decided on 05.05.2022], Arise India Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Taxes, Delhi & Others [Writ C No. 2106/2015, decided on 26.10.2017], Commissioner of Trade Tax, Delhi v. Arise India Limited [SLP (Civ