Burden of proof on party claiming exemption :
A party claiming exemption has to establish that he is eligible for exemption contained in the notification, i.e. burden of proof is on him – CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal (2010) 260 ELT 3 = (2011) 1 SCC 236 (SC 5 member bench) * Mysore Metal Industries v. CC, Bombay 1988 (36) ELT 369 (SC) = 1988 (17) ECR 636, followed in Award Packaging v. CCE 1994 (71) ELT 55 (CEGAT) same view in * Motiram Tolaram v. UOI 1999 AIR SCW 3070 = 1999(6) SCC 375 = AIR 1999 SC 3121 = 1999(6) SCC 375 = 112 ELT 749 (SC 3 member bench) * CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo – 1959 (35) ITR 312 (SC) * Rajasthan Spinning &Wvg v. CCE – (1996) 102 STC 476 (SC) * Khatema Fibres v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2001 AIR SCW 22 * CC v. Presto Industries 2001 AIR SCW 828 = 128 ELT 321 = (2001) 3 SCC 6* Hotel Leela Ventures v. CC (2009) 234 ELT 389 (SC) * CCE v. Parenteral Drugs (2009) 236 ELT 625 (SC) * Natson Laminates v. CCE 2005 (181) ELT 382 (SC 3 member bench) * Fitpack Textile v. CCE 2001(130) ELT 759 (CEGAT) * CCE v. Jindal Spinning 2002 (141) ELT 811 (CEGAT).
Liability to tax has to be proved by revenue authorities, but to earn the exemption, assessee (taxable person under GST) has to establish his eligibility – Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT – AIR 1966 SC 1007.
Burden of proof is on assessee (taxable person under GST) even if proving is difficult (in this case there was a negative condition which was not possible to prove) – Monito Enterprises v. CCE 1999 (112) ELT 217 (CEGAT).
However, if there is an exclusion carved out in an exemption notification, the burden of proof is on the Revenue if it wants to deny exemption. – CC v. K Mohan – 1989 (43) ELT 811 (SC) – quoted and followed in Khanna Industries v. CCE – 1996 (82) ELT 109 = 1996 (12) RLT 751 (CEGAT 3 member bench).