1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters 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 Manuals
of of All Manuals
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds Section 17(5)(c) & (d) CGST, sets functionality test for plant definition in ITC claims</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, rejecting challenges based on Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It introduced a functionality test to determine whether an immovable property qualifies as a 'plant' for input tax credit (ITC) purposes, emphasizing that this is a factual question to be decided case-by-case. If a building serves special technical requirements, it may be treated as a plant, allowing ITC on goods and services used in its construction and rental. The Court distinguished clauses (c) and (d) as operating in different fields, negating claims of discriminatory treatment. The case was remanded to the High Court for factual determination of the mall's status under the functionality test. Subsequently, the government proposed amending Section 17(5)(d) to replace 'plant or machinery' with 'plant and machinery,' clarifying ITC eligibility retrospectively from 2017, potentially prompting further litigation over the definition of 'plant.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
