Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Input Tax Credit on Breakwater Construction Under CGST Act. Breakwater Held to Be Immovable Property and Not 'Plant or Machinery' Under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act, 2017.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 451
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Konkan LNG Private Limited, a subsidiary of GAIL (India) Ltd., is engaged in the regassification of LNG at its plant in Dabhol. To enable all-weather berthing of LNG carriers, the petitioner undertook reconstruction of an incomplete breakwater adjacent to its jetty, spending approximately Rs. 600 crores. The petitioner sought an advance ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, on whether it was eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the construction of the breakwater. The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling held that the breakwater is an immovable property and not 'plant or machinery' under Section 17(5)(d), thus ITC is blocked. The Appellate Authority affirmed this decision. The petitioner challenged the appellate order before the Bombay High Court. The court considered the definition of 'plant and machinery' in the Explanation to Section 17, which includes apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation and structural support used for making outward supply. The court found that the breakwater, consisting of rocks, boulders, and accropodes, is a civil structure designed to protect the jetty from waves, not an apparatus or machinery used directly in the supply of regassification services. The court held that the breakwater is an immovable property and does not fall within the exception for plant or machinery under Section 17(5)(d). Consequently, the ITC on its construction is not available. The petition was dismissed, upholding the orders of the authorities below.

Headnote

A) Goods and Services Tax - Input Tax Credit - Blocked Credit - Section 17(5)(d) CGST Act, 2017 - Breakwater as Immovable Property - The petitioner, engaged in regassification of LNG, constructed a breakwater to protect its jetty. The court held that the breakwater is an immovable property and not 'plant or machinery' as defined in the Explanation to Section 17. Therefore, input tax credit on goods and services used for its construction is blocked under Section 17(5)(d). The court upheld the orders of the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority. (Paras 10-13)

B) Goods and Services Tax - Plant and Machinery - Definition - Explanation to Section 17 CGST Act, 2017 - The term 'plant and machinery' means apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation and structural support used for making outward supply. The breakwater, being a civil structure comprising rocks and accropodes, does not qualify as apparatus, equipment, or machinery. It is a protective structure, not used directly in the outward supply of services. (Paras 11-13)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the construction of a breakwater qualifies as 'plant or machinery' under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, entitling the petitioner to Input Tax Credit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority, denying Input Tax Credit on the construction of the breakwater.

Law Points

  • Input Tax Credit
  • Blocked Credit
  • Plant and Machinery
  • Immovable Property
  • Breakwater
  • Section 17(5)(d) CGST Act
  • 2017
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (6) 287

WRIT PETITION NO. 313 OF 2021

2024-06-28

K. R. Shriram J.

Mr. Sridharan, Ms. Chavan, Mr. Deshmukh

Konkan LNG Private Limited

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling under GST, which denied Input Tax Credit on construction of a breakwater.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the appellate order and a declaration that it is entitled to Input Tax Credit on the construction of the breakwater.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was denied Input Tax Credit on the construction of a breakwater, which it considered essential for its business operations.

Previous Decisions

The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (Respondent No.5) held that the breakwater is not 'plant or machinery' and ITC is blocked under Section 17(5)(d). The Appellate Authority (Respondent No.6) affirmed this order on 6th November 2019.

Issues

Whether the breakwater qualifies as 'plant or machinery' under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, so as to allow Input Tax Credit. Whether the breakwater is an immovable property and thus subject to the blocked credit provision.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the breakwater is an 'apparatus' and thus 'plant and machinery' as per the Explanation to Section 17, and ITC should be available. Respondents argued that the breakwater is a civil structure, not plant or machinery, and ITC is rightly denied.

Ratio Decidendi

The breakwater is an immovable property and does not fall within the exception for 'plant or machinery' under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, input tax credit on goods and services used for its construction is blocked.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act reads as under: ... (d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business. In our view, the conclusion arrived at by respondent no.5 and respondent no.6 do not require any interference.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed an application for advance ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act before the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling, which ruled against the petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 101, which affirmed the order on 6th November 2019. Petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the appellate order.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 16, Section 17, Section 17(5)(d), Section 97, Section 101
  • Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 16, Section 17, Section 17(5)(d), Section 97, Section 101
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Upholds Removal of Police Constable in Disciplinary Proceedings for Desertion from Training. Removal from Service Upheld as Punishment Not Shockingly Disproportionate Under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipl...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Hears Challenge to Direction Deleting Gram Panchayat from Co-operative Society's Area of Operation. Direction Issued Under Section 12(5) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act Allegedly Without Authority and in Violation of N...