Section 155 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Twenty-two words that decide who has to prove what — and the more important part is what they leave out.
Section 155: "Where any person claims that he is eligible for input tax credit under this Act, the burden of proving such claim shall lie on such person." The burden is placed on the taxpayer for one question: eligibility to input tax credit. By implication, the burden on every other aspect of an assessment — that a supply was made, that turnover was suppressed, that a classification is wrong, that a value was understated — lies on the proper officer, who must produce material to displace the self-assessment that s.59 requires the taxpayer to make.
The allocation, and the implication
What s.155 places on the taxpayer: proof of eligibility to input tax credit.
What it does not place on the taxpayer: anything else.
The implication the ICAI handbook draws out is the important part. GST is a self-assessment regime: s.59 appoints the registered person as the person who assesses. Where the proper officer is dissatisfied with that self-assessment, it is for him to produce material to question its validity and to demand tax in accordance with the procedures the Act establishes.
And s.75(7) reinforces it from the other end: the notice must contain the grounds supporting the demand, and the order confirming it must be confined to those grounds. So the department must state its case and prove it. Section 75(7) →
Discharging the burden on credit
Because s.155 is specific, the evidence required is specific — and it maps onto the s.16(2) conditions.
| Section 16(2) condition | What proves it |
|---|---|
| (a) Possession of a tax invoice or debit note | The document, with the Rule 46 particulars and the IRN where e-invoicing applies |
| (aa) The supplier furnished the details and they are communicated to the recipient | The GSTR-2B entry for the period |
| (b) The recipient has received the goods or services | Delivery documents, e-way bill, gate entry, GRN, stores record, weighbridge slip; for services, deliverables and correspondence |
| (c) The tax has been paid to the Government | The supplier's GSTR-3B position; Rule 37A is the mirror obligation |
| (d) The recipient has furnished the return under s.39 | The GSTR-3B filing record |
| Proviso | Payment within 180 days, else reversal under Rule 37 |
The condition that carries most of the litigation is (b) — receipt. It is the one that a fake-invoicing allegation attacks, and the one that documents rather than assertion must establish. Fake invoicing → Rule 36 documents →
The practical consequence: a business that keeps the receipt trail — not just the invoice and the payment — has discharged the burden that s.155 places on it. One that keeps only the invoice and the bank transfer has not.
Where the burden does not shift
Turnover suppression. The allegation that turnover was suppressed is the department's, and it must be established from material — third-party data, seized records, a reconciliation that the taxpayer cannot explain. It is not for the taxpayer to prove a negative.
Classification. Where the department asserts a different HSN or SAC, the assertion is its own, and the tariff analysis supporting it must be stated in the notice. The taxpayer answers it; it does not have to disprove every alternative heading.
Valuation. Where s.15(1) transaction value is displaced, the department must establish why — that the parties are related, that the price is not the sole consideration — before the valuation rules operate. Transaction value →
Suppression, fraud and wilful misstatement. These are characterisations the department alleges, and s.75(2) and s.75(2A) both provide for what happens when they are not established — re-determination on the non-fraud footing, and the lower penalty band respectively. That drafting assumes the department bears the burden of establishing them. The suppression allegation →
And in a prosecution, the position is different again. Section 135 requires the court to presume a culpable mental state, with the accused to prove otherwise — a reverse onus that operates only in prosecutions, not in adjudication. Sections 133 to 136 →
Using section 155 in a reply
As a shield, on credit: set out the evidence for each s.16(2) condition, condition by condition, with the documents annexed and indexed. The burden is yours, and meeting it explicitly is more persuasive than asserting eligibility.
As a sword, on everything else: where the notice asserts suppression, undervaluation or misclassification without material, say so — that the burden on that aspect lies on the officer, that s.75(7) requires the grounds to be specified, and that no material supporting them has been supplied.
And ask for the material. Where the notice relies on third-party data, a reconciliation, an audit annexure or a statement, the material relied on must be supplied so that a reply can be made. A demand built on undisclosed material is answerable on that ground alone. Answering a DRC-01 →
Two related provisions worth knowing
Section 158 — disclosure of information by a public servant. All particulars in any statement, return, accounts or documents produced under the Act, or in any record of evidence in proceedings under it (other than before a criminal court), or in any record of proceedings, shall not be disclosed, save as sub-section (3) provides. And s.158(2): notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall require an officer to produce or give evidence in respect of those particulars, save as provided in sub-section (3).
Section 157 — protection of action taken. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding lies against Tribunal members, officers or employees, or against any officer appointed or authorised under the Act, for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under the Act or the rules.
Section 156 — all persons discharging functions under the Act are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of s.21 of the Indian Penal Code.
Together they set the frame: information furnished is protected, officers acting in good faith are protected, and officers are public servants for the purposes of the criminal law.
Key takeaways
- Section 155 places the burden on the taxpayer for one question: eligibility to input tax credit.
- By implication, the burden on every other aspect of an assessment lies on the proper officer.
- Discharge it condition by condition against s.16(2), with the receipt trail as the critical element.
- Turnover, classification, valuation and suppression are the department's to establish.
- Section 135 reverses the onus on mental state, but only in a prosecution.
- Sections 156, 157 and 158 protect the information furnished and officers acting in good faith.
Read next
- Section 59: Self-Assessment Is the Whole Architecture
- Section 75(7): No Demand Beyond the Notice
- Fake Invoicing: The Full Consequence Chain
- Rule 36: Documents on Which ITC Can Be Claimed
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition) and the ICAI Handbook on Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest under GST (July 2025).