https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761599 The constitutional challenge to clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act was rejected because the provisions had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. The governing interpretation distinguishes "plant or machinery" from "plant and machinery" in clause (d), and recognises that whether an immovable property can qualify as a plant depends on the functionality test applied to the facts of each case. The result is that the impugned input tax credit restrictions under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) remain valid. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 May 2025 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761599 The constitutional challenge to clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act was rejected because the provisions had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. The governing interpretation distinguishes "plant or machinery" from "plant and machinery" in clause (d), and recognises that whether an immovable property can qualify as a plant depends on the functionality test applied to the facts of each case. The result is that the impugned input tax credit restrictions under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) remain valid. Case-Laws GST Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761599