Hotel construction input tax credit ruling rejected due to pending cases under Section 97(2)(d)

AAR Uttarakhand rejected an application seeking advance ruling on input tax credit admissibility for construction of hotel building and banquet hall. The applicant argued no case was pending in their name on the specific issue. However, the authority found that cases were pending in respective courts on the same issue, making the matter sub-judice under Section 97(2)(d) of the Act, which prohibits admission of applications where questions are pending in other proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of input tax credit on goods/services for construction of hotel and banquet hall.

Analysis:
The application sought advance ruling on input tax credit (ITC) for constructing a hotel and banquet hall. The applicant questioned whether ITC on goods/services received for construction is available, including work contract services. The applicant also inquired about the inclusion of 'plant & machinery' under section 17 for ITC eligibility. The ruling authority examined the scope of advance ruling under GST, which covers matters like classification, applicability of notifications, input tax credit, and liability to pay tax. The application was admitted for hearing based on the admissibility of ITC, as per Section 97(2)(d) of the Act.

The authority noted that a similar issue was raised in a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand by another entity. The authority decided to consider the outcome of that petition before making a ruling. A notice was issued to the applicant to show cause why their application should not be rejected. During the hearing, the applicant argued for the admissibility of ITC based on legal provisions and precedents. The applicant emphasized the importance of advance rulings in clarifying tax positions and highlighted the binding nature of rulings until a change in law occurs.

Upon reviewing the records, the authority found that the issue of ITC admissibility for construction was already under consideration by different courts. The applicant's argument that no case was pending specifically in their name was countered by the definition of 'applicant' under the Act, which includes any registered person. The authority concluded that since similar cases were sub-judice in various courts, the applicant's application was rejected under Section 98(2) of the Act. This decision was based on the provision that the authority shall not admit applications where the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings related to the Act.

In summary, the ruling authority rejected the application for advance ruling on the admissibility of input tax credit for construction activities due to the issue being sub-judice in other court cases. The decision was made in accordance with the legal provisions that prevent the admission of applications where the question raised is already under consideration in other proceedings.

---