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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ? 
 NOTE: 
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>SC rules telecom towers not immovable property under Section 17(5)(d) CGST Act, denies input tax credit claim</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEAL-1, DELHI ETC. Versus M/s BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED ETC.</h3> The SC upheld the HC's finding that telecommunication towers do not qualify as immovable property under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act. Consequently, ... Characterization of telecommunication towers as immovable property falling within the ambit of Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act - illegible for input tax credit - assertion of the writ petitioners is that telecommunication towers are moveable items of essential equipment used in telecommunications which can be dismantled at site and thus capable of being moved - it was held by High Court that 'There are no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that telecommunication towers would not fall within the ambit of Section 17 (5) (d) of the CGST Act. The denial of input tax credit, consequently, would not sustain.' HELD THAT:- It is not satisfied that these are fit cases to exercise discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Petition of the Revenue dismissed. The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 105 days in filing the petitions, allowing the associated interim application. However, after hearing counsel for both parties, the Court concluded that the cases were not appropriate for exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. The decision underscores the Court's strict approach in granting special leave to appeal, emphasizing that mere delay condonation does not guarantee discretionary relief absent compelling reasons.