Co-op Society Denied Tax Credit on Lift Installation Costs Under CGST Act |

The Appellant, a Co-operative Housing Society, was denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) on lift installation charges under Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling. The lift was classified as immovable property once installed, following Supreme Court precedent. The Appellant's argument that the lift should be considered "Plant and Machinery" was rejected, as lifts are excluded from this category under the Act. The Appellant's claim of providing works contract services was also dismissed, as they did not meet the conditions for ITC under Section 17(5)(c). The appeal was consequently rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on lift installation charges.
2. Classification of the lift as immovable property or plant and machinery.
3. Applicability of works contract services provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Lift Installation Charges:
The Appellant, a Co-operative Housing Society, sought to determine if they were eligible for ITC on lift installation charges paid to Fujitec, booked as capital expenditure without availing depreciation on the 18% GST charged. The Appellant contended that the lift should be considered "Plant and Machinery," thus outside the purview of blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on various definitions and provisions under the CGST Act, 2017, including Section 16(1) and the exclusion clause of Section 17(5)(d).

2. Classification of the Lift as Immovable Property or Plant and Machinery:
The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (MAAR) held that the lift, once erected, installed, and commissioned, becomes an integral part of the building, thus classified as immovable property. This classification was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E., which held that such installations are immovable property. Consequently, ITC on lift installation charges was deemed inadmissible under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which excludes ITC for goods or services used for constructing immovable property.

3. Applicability of Works Contract Services Provisions:
The Appellant argued that they were providing works contract services to the society members by passing on the services received from the lift contractor without alteration. They claimed eligibility for ITC under Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows ITC on works contract services if used for further supply of such services. However, the authority found that the Appellant was not a works contract service provider and did not fulfill the conditions for ITC under this provision. The services were received for the common benefit of the society members, not for further supply of works contract services.

Respondent's Submissions:
The Respondent supported the advance ruling, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., U.P., and other cases that classified lifts as part of immovable property. They contended that ITC was not available under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Personal Hearing:
During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated their arguments, emphasizing that lifts should be considered plant and machinery and that they were eligible for ITC under the provisions of Circular No. 109/28/2019-GST. The jurisdictional officer maintained that the advance ruling was correct and legal.

Discussions and Findings:
The authority examined the appeal and the impugned ruling. They agreed with the advance ruling that lifts, once installed, become part of the building and are thus immovable property. The definition of "Plant and Machinery" under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act excludes buildings and civil structures, supporting the exclusion of lifts from this category. The authority also found that the Appellant did not provide works contract services and thus was not eligible for ITC under Section 17(5)(c). The Circular No. 109/28/2019-GST was deemed inapplicable as it pertains to capital goods, not works contract services.

Order:
The authority upheld the ruling of the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority, concluding that the Appellant is not eligible for ITC on lift installation charges under Section 16(2)(b) read with Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was rejected.

---