https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767740 The impugned order was set aside because it failed to apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of clause (d) of section 17(5) of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the meaning of "plant or machinery" and the functionality test are material to deciding whether a building qualifies as a plant, and that this legal position had not been considered. The matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767740 The impugned order was set aside because it failed to apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of clause (d) of section 17(5) of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the meaning of "plant or machinery" and the functionality test are material to deciding whether a building qualifies as a plant, and that this legal position had not been considered. The matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws GST Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767740