Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Mere production of invoices and payment by cheque does not discharge the burden of proof - Several courts have consistently held that merely producing invoices or proof of payment (such as cheques or RTGS) is insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof under Section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The burden remains on the assessee or the party claiming input tax credit (ITC) to prove the legitimacy of their claims, including the actual movement of goods and proper mode of payment. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT vs M/S DINESH ASSOCIATES - Karnataka, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs M/S DINESH ASSOCIATES - Karnataka, The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. - Allahabad, Commissioner Commercial Tax v. M/s. Ramway Foods Ltd. - Allahabad, APEX CLINIC SDN BHD vs LIM CHIANG YANG - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru, M/S. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - Madras
Burden of proof is on the party asserting a fact and does not shift - Courts have clarified that the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts a fact and that this burden does not shift merely because documents are produced. If the initial burden is not discharged, the opposing party is not required to produce additional evidence. Proper proof requires more than documentation; it involves establishing actual possession, movement, or delivery of goods, and the authenticity of transactions. SRI GITAM KATAKI Vs SRI SARDAR SERVINDER SINGH SETHI - Gauhati, PRABJYOTSING HARVINDRA SING BINDRA vs SHRIVALLABH RAMGOPAL RAMCHANDRAJI DARAK - Bombay, DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
Legal principles from Supreme Court cases - The Supreme Court in cases like Raghvamma v. A. Cherry Chamma (AIR 1964 SC 136) and Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1971) distinguished between the burden of proof and the onus of proof, emphasizing that the burden remains on the party asserting a fact and that improper shifting or failure to discharge this burden can vitiate judgments.
Conclusion - Courts consistently emphasize that invoices without accompanying proof of actual payment, movement of goods, or other substantive evidence do not satisfy the burden of proof required under relevant tax laws. The onus remains on the claimant to substantiate their claims with credible evidence beyond mere documentation. Failure to do so results in the claim being rejected, reaffirming that invoices alone are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. All references above
In legal disputes involving payment claims—whether in construction contracts, tax matters, or commercial transactions—proving that money has actually changed hands is crucial. But what happens when a party relies solely on invoices or payment vouchers? Cases where the Court Decided that Invoices Without Proof of Payment Does Not Discharge the Burden of Proof reveal a consistent judicial stance: such documents alone are insufficient. This blog explores key rulings, legal principles, and practical advice to help businesses and individuals navigate these requirements effectively.
Note: This article provides general information based on reported cases and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific situations.
Courts universally place the burden of proof on the party claiming payment—typically the defendant or claimant asserting that sums have been settled. This burden is two-fold: first, establishing the case, and second, introducing credible evidence. Simply producing invoices or payment vouchers falls short without corroboration.
As emphasized in judicial decisions, The burden of proof on that party is two-fold, firstly the burden of establishing a case and secondly the burden of proof of introducing evidence. ANGKASA TIRAM SDN BHD vs TRUE LANDING SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 1478ANGKASA TIRAM SDN BHD vs TRUE LANDING SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 1478ANEKA MELOR SDN BHD vs SERI SABCO (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEALS - 2015 MarsdenLR 324
The main legal finding is clear: invoices alone, without supporting proof of payment like receipts, bank statements, or other documents, do not discharge this burden. This principle protects against unsubstantiated claims and ensures evidentiary rigor.
A pivotal case illustrates this requirement. In VILLAGE GROVE CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs YUNCO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 285, the court ruled that the defendant failed to discharge its burden because it relied solely on payment vouchers lacking supporting evidence. The judgment stated:
The primary evidence of the payments reflected in the payment vouchers such as invoices or receipts or other supporting documents of the payments ought to be tendered by the defendant to prove the payments of specific items in the payment vouchers. VILLAGE GROVE CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs YUNCO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 285
Further, the court noted deficiencies in the vouchers themselves:
There was nothing written on the payment vouchers (Exh CBOD Part C Vol 2 (pp 142 to 161) which show that the claims alleged to be paid by the defendant was in respect or related to the renovation works of VGC. VILLAGE GROVE CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs YUNCO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 285
This ruling underscores that invoices are necessary to link vouchers to specific transactions, establishing both the nature and fact of payment.
This principle extends beyond Malaysian courts to international jurisdictions, particularly in tax and commercial law. Indian High Courts and tribunals have echoed similar holdings, especially under statutes like the KVAT Act, 2003.
For instance, mere production of invoices and proof of payment by cheque or RTGS does not discharge the burden for input tax credit claims. Courts require evidence of actual goods movement and transaction legitimacy THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT vs M/S DINESH ASSOCIATES - KarnatakaINDKAR000000153188The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. - AllahabadINDALL000000109652APEX CLINIC SDN BHD vs LIM CHIANG YANG - High Court Malaya Johor BahruM/S. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - Madras.
In SRI GITAM KATAKI Vs SRI SARDAR SERVINDER SINGH SETHI - Gauhati, the court examined whether exhibiting invoices without proving recipient signatures discharges the plaintiff's burden, concluding that findings below were not perverse when specific denials existed regarding goods receipt.
Tax tribunals reinforce this: Respondent failed to discharge burden of proof, lying upon it. DIGI CABLECOMM SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs DILIP RAJAK (SOLE PROPRIETOR OF B.R. COMMUNICATION) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) 11 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) 11. The Supreme Court in Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma (AIR 1964 SC 136) distinguished burden from onus of proof: Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the facts and it never shifts. DIGI CABLECOMM SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs DILIP RAJAK (SOLE PROPRIETOR OF B.R. COMMUNICATION) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) 11 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) 11 DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.
These cases affirm: burden of proof is on the party asserting a fact and does not shift merely by producing documents. Proper proof demands substantive evidence like delivery proofs or bank records PRABJYOTSING HARVINDRA SING BINDRA vs SHRIVALLABH RAMGOPAL RAMCHANDRAJI DARAK - Bombay.
Indian Supreme Court precedents provide foundational clarity. In Raghvamma v. A. Cherry Chamma (AIR 1964 SC 136), the court propounded that burden and onus are distinct—burden remains fixed on the asserting party DEN NETWORKS LTDVSLAKSHMI GOLD KHAZAANAA PVT.LTD. - Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1971) highlights how failure to discharge initial burden vitiates claims.
This aligns with Malaysian rulings: courts reject claims based solely on invoices or vouchers without payment proof ANGKASA TIRAM SDN BHD vs TRUE LANDING SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 1478.
While invoices alone are generally insufficient, exceptions may apply if alternative credible evidence is presented:- Bank statements showing transfers linked to specific invoices.- Receipts or acknowledgments from recipients.- Witness testimony or affidavits corroborating payment.
However, such evidence must be explicitly tendered and proven. In tax contexts, even cheques require proof of encashment and goods transport THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT vs M/S DINESH ASSOCIATES - Karnataka. Claimants ignoring this risk rejection, as courts prioritize substance over form.
To avoid pitfalls:- Compile comprehensive records: Pair invoices with receipts, bank statements, and delivery challans.- Document linkages: Ensure vouchers reference specific works or goods clearly.- Anticipate disputes: In contracts, mandate detailed payment proofs.- Defendants' strategy: When disputing claims, demand plaintiff evidence first—burden doesn't shift automatically.
Proactive documentation strengthens positions in court or arbitration.
Courts consistently hold that invoices without proof of payment do not discharge the burden of proofVILLAGE GROVE CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs YUNCO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 285ANGKASA TIRAM SDN BHD vs TRUE LANDING SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 1478. From Malaysian contract disputes to Indian tax appeals, the message is uniform: credible, corroborated evidence is essential.
Key takeaways:- Burden lies on the claimant and never shifts without prima facie proof.- Use primary documents like receipts alongside invoices.- Failure invites rejection—bolster claims with multifaceted evidence.
Stay informed, document diligently, and seek professional guidance to safeguard your interests.
Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. … Such a burden of proof cannot get shifted on the revenue. ... Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of pr....
Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. ... Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. … Such a burden of #H....
However, upon reading the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited (supra), it is clear that mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques/RTGS is not enough to discharge the burden of proof upon the assessee. ... Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheq....
the invoices; (b) Whether the burden of proof upon the plaintiff stands discharge on mere exhibiting a document without proving the signatures of the recipients; (c) Whether Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act attracts when there is specific denial regarding receipts of the goods; and (d) The defendant/ ... The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not found to be perverse. This ....
lies has been able to discharge his burden. ... frst, only thereafter the defendant will be required to discharge the burden in order to dislodge such proof and to
Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under S.70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. ... Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. Merely because the dealer claiming such ITC c....
Where a party on whom the burden of proof lies has discharged that burden, then the evidential burden shifts to the other party. However, if the party on whom the burden of proof lies fails to discharge it, the other party need not call any evidence. ... If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to d....
Whereas, Respondent failed to discharge burden of proof, lying upon it. Hence, this issue is being decided in favour of Petitioner as against Respondent. 23. ... A Cherry Chamma – AIR 1964 SC 136 has propounded that burden and onus of proof, are two different things. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the facts and it never shifts. Onu....
Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. ... Burden of proof that the ITC claim is correct is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. Merely because the dealer claiming such....
Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma – AIR 1964 SC 136 has propounded that burden and onus of proof are two different things. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the facts and it never shifts. ... Burden of Proof as well as Onus of Proof are two different things. Burden of Proof#HL_EN....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
