Burden of Proof

Under GST law, the “Burden of Proof” (a static legal obligation) is distinguished from the “Onus of Proof” (a shifting evidentiary duty). Generally, the Revenue bears the burden of proving taxability, correct classification, and valuation, including establishing that a transaction constitutes a "supply". Conversely, for exemptions and refunds, the burden lies with the claimant to prove eligibility and the absence of unjust enrichment. Notably, Section 155 specifically casts the burden of proving Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility on the taxpayer. However, this obligation is not absolute; once the taxpayer provides reasonable evidence (e.g., proof of receipt), the onus shifts to the Revenue to rebut it. The required standard of proof varies from a "preponderance of probability" in tax proceedings to "beyond reasonable doubt" in prosecution.

The maxim “Ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probation” embodies the principle that the party asserting a fact must prove it. Disputes under the GST law invariably require the establishment of facts through corroborative evidence and their application to statutory provisions. In this context, the concept of “burden of proof” plays a pivotal role in determining the respective obligations of the taxpayer and the revenue.