TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Input tax credit for supplier tax on hydrotreated vegetable oil/renewable diesel allowed subject to s.16 read with s.17 verification case-by-case</h1> AAR held that input tax credit on tax charged by the supplier for Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil/renewable diesel may be availed subject to conditions and ... Input tax credit - tax charged by the supplier on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)/ Renewable diesel - Hydrotreated Vegetable, Oil (HVO)/ Renewable diesel will be used by the applicant in providing transportation services taxable under Forward Charge Mechanism or not - HELD THAT:- It is amply clear that subject to the conditions and restrictions as stipulated under Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 17, a taxpayer is eligible to Input Tax credit. Imposing reasonable restrictions on availing Input Tax Credit equally to all tax payers is within the legislative power of the Government. It can thus be seen that the conditions stipulated are equally applicable to all taxpayers and, therefore, ensures fairness and equality to all the taxpayers. In the context of GST, the power to levy tax or prescribe conditions for availing Input Tax Credit (as stipulated under section 16 of CGST Act, 2017) are based on statutory provisions and not by an executive order. Availing Input Tax Credit is not an absolute right as contended by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that section 164 of the CGST Act empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. A conjoint reading of section 16 and section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017 clearly indicates that the Government is also empowered to make rules to regulate availing and utilization of Input tax credit. Further, it is a well settled law that when the statute prescribes certain things to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner alone and not in any other manner. The burden of proving eligibility for Input tax credit under the CGST Act, 2017 lies squarely upon the Tax payer themselves. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in it judgement, in the case of State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT] held that the burden to prove the admissibility of credit would lie on the taxpayer claiming the ITC. The Hon'ble court held that tax invoices and payment details alone would not be sufficient proof and provided a list of documents/records that would need to be furnished in such cases to prove the admissibility of credit. The tax charged by the supplier on the claimed usage of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)/ Renewable diesel will only be available to the applicant as Input Tax Credit, subject to the adherence of the provisions of Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 17 ibid, to be verified on a case-to-case basis, read with N/N. 11/2017 CT(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as amended as amended from time to time, lastly amended vide N/N. 15/2025 CT(Rate) dated 17.9.2025. Further, the legality and technicality as regard the usage of claimed usage of HVO as fuel, not being a subject matter under CGST / CGGST Act, 2017 this authority is not authorized to pass any conclusive remarks in the matter. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether input tax credit (ITC) of GST charged on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)/Renewable diesel procured by a taxpayer engaged in land transport services (taxable under forward charge) is admissible under the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether any provision in the CGST Act, 2017 (notably Section 16 and Section 17) or relevant notifications operates to categorically deny ITC on fuel such as HVO/renewable diesel when used in provision of transportation of goods. 3. Extent of the Authority for Advance Ruling's competence to adjudicate technical or regulatory questions concerning the legality, blending, storage or actual use of HVO as motor fuel vis-à-vis non-tax statutes/orders. 4. Burden of proof and documentary/other requirements a taxpayer must satisfy to establish entitlement to ITC on such inputs. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Admissibility of ITC on HVO/Renewable diesel used in taxable land-transport services Legal framework: Section 16(1) provides that every registered person, subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions, is entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. Section 16(2) lists conditions (possession of tax invoice, receipt of goods/services, supplier furnishing details, tax actually paid, return filed). Section 17 imposes restrictions and lists blocked credits (Section 17(5) lists categories where ITC is not available). Precedent treatment: The Authority relied on a Chhattisgarh High Court pronouncement emphasizing that ITC is subject to conditions and restrictions under Section 16. The Authority also cited the Supreme Court decision (noted for its evidentiary implications) that places the burden on the taxpayer to prove admissibility of credit (analogous effect with Section 155). Interpretation and reasoning: Fuel purchased and used in providing taxable transportation services constitutes an input used in the course or furtherance of business. Section 17(5) enumerates blocked credits but does not contain any blanket prohibition on credit for fuels used to provide taxable transportation of goods (the statutory prohibition relates to motor vehicles themselves and specific services/goods listed). Consequently, if HVO/renewable diesel is a taxable supply (invoice, tax paid and supplier compliance), it prima facie qualifies for ITC subject to Section 16(2) conditions and Section 17 restrictions where applicable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ITC on HVO/renewable diesel is not per se barred under the CGST framework and is available subject to statutory conditions and restrictions. Obiter - ancillary observations about policy (National Biofuels Policy) and notifications adjusting GST rate on GTA services are contextual and not determinative of ITC entitlement in each factual instance. Conclusions: ITC on GST charged by the supplier on HVO/renewable diesel will be available to a taxpayer providing taxable land transport services under forward charge mechanism, provided all conditions of Section 16(2) and restrictions of Section 17 are satisfied and verified on a case-by-case basis. Issue 2: Whether any statutory provision or notification categorically denies ITC on biodiesel/HVO Legal framework: Section 17(5) identifies specific blocked credits (e.g., passenger motor vehicles, certain services, personal consumption). Notification schedules set tax rates for goods and services but do not, per se, create or remove ITC eligibility beyond statutory provisions. Precedent treatment: Authority referenced statutory scheme and the High Court pronouncement confirming that entitlement to ITC is not absolute but subject to legislative conditions. Interpretation and reasoning: The CGST Act does not contain an explicit provision blocking ITC on fuel used for transport of goods. Notification entries specifying HSN and applicable rates (Chapter 27 entries) determine taxability and rate but do not automatically preclude ITC. Therefore, absence of a specific bar means eligibility turns on satisfying Section 16(2) and not being hit by any clause of Section 17(5) or other statutory restriction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - No categorical statutory bar exists to deny ITC on HVO/renewable diesel used for transportation of goods. Obiter - references to rate changes for GTA services and policy preferences for biofuels inform context but do not alter statutory entitlement. Conclusions: No provision in Sections 16/17 or existing notifications studied imposes a categorical denial of ITC on HVO/renewable diesel; eligibility depends on compliance with statutory conditions and restrictions. Issue 3: Authority's competence to decide technical/regulatory questions about HVO use and non-tax control orders Legal framework: Advance Ruling jurisdiction (Section 97 read with Section 103 as noted) is confined to specified questions under the GST law (classification, admissibility of ITC, applicability of notification, time/value, liability, registration, whether particular activity amounts to supply). Non-GST regulatory or technical matters (e.g., blending, storage, authorized use under Petroleum control Orders) fall outside the GST Chapter's domain. Precedent treatment: Authority reiterated its jurisdictional limits and cited policy documents and control orders only for context. Interpretation and reasoning: Questions about whether the claimed HVO is technically suitable/authorized for use as motor fuel, or whether its distribution/marketing complies with petroleum control orders and state control measures, are regulatory/technical issues governed by other statutes and administrative orders. The Advance Ruling Authority is not empowered to adjudicate or pronounce conclusively on those matters; such questions must be resolved by relevant technical/regulatory authorities or in adjudication where such issues are within remit. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Authority cannot decide non-GST technical or regulatory legality of HVO use; such determinations are beyond its competence. Obiter - policy excerpts and control orders are cited as contextual material only. Conclusions: The Authority declines to rule on legality/technicality of HVO usage as fuel; its ruling on ITC is confined to GST law and applicable conditions. Issue 4: Burden of proof and documentary requirements to claim ITC on HVO Legal framework: Section 16(2) conditions; Section 155 places burden of proof on taxpayer to establish eligibility for ITC. Relevant jurisprudence requires production of supporting records beyond invoices and payment evidence in certain factual matrices. Precedent treatment: Authority relied on Supreme Court guidance (and analogous judicial reasoning) that tax invoices and payment proofs may be insufficient; additional records may be required to discharge the burden (e.g., seller details, delivery/vehicle details, proof of receipt, payment of freight, acknowledgements). Interpretation and reasoning: A taxpayer claiming ITC on HVO/renewable diesel must possess tax invoices/debit notes, ensure supplier has furnished outward details, have received goods, supplier tax paid, and have filed returns. Given Section 155, claimant must be able to substantiate actual use in business and legitimacy of transactions with ancillary documents/records as may be necessary to satisfy admissibility on verification. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The burden to prove ITC entitlement lies with the taxpayer and may require evidence beyond invoices (subject to fact-specific adjudication). Obiter - enumerated documents from cited cases provide guidance but are fact-sensitive. Conclusions: Claimant must satisfy Section 16(2) conditions and Section 155 burden; admissibility will be verified case-by-case and may require supplementary documentary proof of receipt and use. Final Determination (consolidated) The tax charged by the supplier on claimed usage of HVO/renewable diesel is potentially available as Input Tax Credit to a taxpayer providing taxable land-transport services under forward charge, but such availability is conditional-subject to strict compliance with Section 16(2) requirements, Section 17 restrictions (if any), applicable notifications on classification and rates, and verification on a case-by-case basis. The Authority will not adjudicate non-GST technical or regulatory questions about the legality, blending, storage or actual suitability of HVO as motor fuel.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
