Interpretation of "ITC not utilised" vs "ITC not taken" under Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) in case of Railway Transportation Services

[Manoj Mishra]

Under Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate), most concessional-rate entries provide the condition that ITC on goods/services"has not been taken." However, in the case of (a) transportation of passengers by rail in first class/AC coach and (b) transportation of goods by rail, the condition is differently worded to provide that ITC "in respect of goods... is not utilised for paying CGST/IGST on the supply of the service."

I am trying to understand the rationale behind the different expressions "taken" and "utilised"

If "not utilised" means that Railways can avail the ITC in the return but cannot utilise it for payment of GST on the specified railway services, what is the practical relevance of such availment? Why has the notification specifically used the word "utilised" for railway services rather than "taken"?

AI Summary

Input tax credit utilisation conditions for concessional railway transport services differ from credit-availment restrictions in comparable rate entries.
Concessional railway transportation services apply an ITC utilisation condition rather than the more common condition that ITC must not be taken. For first-class or air-conditioned rail passenger transport and rail goods transport, ITC relating to goods cannot be utilised to pay CGST or IGST on the specified services. The issue is whether such ITC may nevertheless be availed and what practical relevance that availment has despite the restriction on its use.