https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302240 The appellate authority upheld the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), determining that the appellant is not eligible to claim credit for GST charged on goods and services used in constructing the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility. The authority emphasized that Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act restricts input tax credit for construction of immovable property, regardless of the property's use. The appellant's argument based on Section 16(1) was dismissed, and the additional evidence submitted at the appellate stage was deemed inadmissible. The appeal was denied, affirming the AAR's decision. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302240 The appellate authority upheld the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), determining that the appellant is not eligible to claim credit for GST charged on goods and services used in constructing the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility. The authority emphasized that Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act restricts input tax credit for construction of immovable property, regardless of the property's use. The appellant's argument based on Section 16(1) was dismissed, and the additional evidence submitted at the appellate stage was deemed inadmissible. The appeal was denied, affirming the AAR's decision. Case-Laws GST Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302240