Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The Supreme Court interpreted clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Regarding clause (c), the Court held that there is no scope to give any meaning other than its plain and natural meaning, excluding works contract services from input tax credit (ITC). Regarding clause (d), the Court held that the expression 'plant or machinery' cannot be given the same meaning as 'plant and machinery' defined in the explanation to Section 17. The expression 'plant or machinery' in clause (d) should be given its ordinary meaning, and whether a building qualifies as a plant depends on the business of the registered person and the role of the building in that business. If the construction of a building is essential for supplying services like renting or leasing, it could be considered a plant under clause (d). The writ petitions were rejected, subject to this interpretation of clause (d).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
