TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) CGST upheld; 'plant or machinery' read literally; building classification is factual</h1> <h3>Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors.</h3> Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors. - 2024 INSC 756, 2024 (90) G.S.T.L. 3 ( SC), ... Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the expression 'plant or machinery' in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.2. Constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of 'Plant or Machinery'- Background: The case revolves around the interpretation of the phrase 'plant or machinery' in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, which differs from 'plant and machinery' defined in the explanation to Section 17. The distinction is crucial as it determines the availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for construction of immovable property.- Court's Analysis: The court noted that the legislature intentionally used 'plant or machinery' in Section 17(5)(d), distinguishing it from 'plant and machinery.' The explanation defining 'plant and machinery' does not apply to 'plant or machinery,' as the two expressions are distinct. The expression 'plant or machinery' should be interpreted using the functionality test, which considers whether a building serves as an essential tool for business operations.- Conclusion: The court concluded that the expression 'plant or machinery' should be interpreted based on its ordinary commercial meaning, considering the functionality test. This interpretation allows for the possibility that certain buildings, like malls or warehouses, could qualify as 'plant' if they are essential for business operations, thus permitting ITC.Issue 2: Constitutional Validity- Background: The constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) was challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The assessees argued that these provisions create unreasonable classifications and deny ITC unjustly.- Court's Analysis: The court emphasized the wide latitude granted to the legislature in matters of taxation, allowing for reasonable classification. The court found that immovable property and immovable goods form a distinct class under GST, and the exclusion of ITC for these categories is justified to prevent encroachment on state powers under Entry 49 of List II.- Court's Conclusion: The court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions, stating that the classification is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the legislative objective. The court rejected the argument of discrimination and found no violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A.Conclusion:- Interpretation of 'Plant or Machinery': The expression 'plant or machinery' in Section 17(5)(d) is distinct from 'plant and machinery' and should be interpreted using the functionality test. This allows certain buildings to qualify for ITC if they are essential for business operations.- Constitutional Validity: The court upheld the constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, finding the classification reasonable and justified.- Remand: The case was remanded to the High Court to determine whether the shopping mall in question qualifies as a 'plant' under the functionality test. Each case must be decided on its merits, applying the principles laid out in this judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
