Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update admissibility of ITC on Paver Blocks 108/2020-21

GST Update admissibility of ITC on Paver Blocks 108/2020-21
Input tax credit is an essential component of GST which aims at removing cascading effect of taxes. However, availability of ITC in relation to construction services which are used in the course of furtherance of business has always been a point of dispute since erstwhile regime. The present update seeks to discuss the advance ruling pronounced in the case of M/s Sundharams Private Ltd.  wherein the issue raised was regarding entitlement to avail input tax credit in respect of Paver Blocks laid on the land which were not capitalised to buildings.
 
The applicant contended that laying of Paver Blocks on land does not amount to construction of immovable property u/s 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and are to be construed as moveable items as such paver blocks are not to be permanently embedded on earth and are capable of being removed as such without causing damage to them for reuse elsewhere. It was also contended by the applicant that they have considered the expense as revenue expenditure and as they have not capitalised the said expense to the building account, the restriction contained in section 17(5) does not apply in the present case. However, the Authority for Advance ruling has held that the purpose of laying of paver blocks is to ensure efficient parking of automobiles with no wear and tear, to have longevity, durability and flexibility to re-use. The flexibility to re-use does not mean that blocks will be removed and re-erected frequently. They are meant to be permanently fixed to earth but whenever the need arises the applicant may remove them and re-erect.
The reasoning taken by the authority also included that mere capability of removal and reuse elsewhere, doesn’t mean blocks are not permanently embedded to earth. It was held that the applicant would not use the paver blocks with an intention to remove it and use the same as a movable property. In the instant case the laying of Paver Blocks would qualify as immovable property and therefore applicant cannot avail input tax credit as per Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant had also placed reliance on the decision given by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of M/s Safari Retreats allowing availment of ITC on construction of malls which are further let out. However, the AAR did not consider the decision on the grounds that the Special Leave Petition has been filed and admitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is sub-judice, pending for final decision.
In this context, reference can be made to ruling given in the case of M/s Sree Varalakshmi Mahaal LLP – AAR Tamil Nadu wherein it was held that the ITC is not available against any goods or services used by the applicant for construction of the marriage hall on his own account, even if said gods or services are used in course or furtherance of his business. Even in case of M/s Unity Traders  -AAR MP it was heldthatITC is not admissible under section 17(5) on goods purchased for purpose of construction and maintenance of warehouse used for letting out on rent.
 
It is observed that apart from favourable decision pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd., wherein the principle of seamless flow of credit in the supply chain has been considered of paramount importance, the AAR do not follow the decision on the grounds that SLP is pending before the Supreme Court. We have time and again mentioned that in view of principle of judicial discipline and the verdict of Apex Court in the case of Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., mere filing of appeal before Court or higher appellate forum cannot be the basis for not following the ratio laid down by the High Court.  However, there is tendency of department of not following the decision where appeal has been preferred and pending before the higher forum. Nonetheless, the aspect regarding treating the expenditure of paver blocks as revenue expenditure was not considered by the AAR which in our opinion has substantial weightage in cases where availability of input tax credit on construction related services is concerned. It is clear that construction includes renovation or repairs and if such expenditure is not capitalised in the books of accounts, the input tax credit is admissible to the assessee. It is hoped that this aspect is examined by the AAAR if the decision of AAR is appealed further by the applicant.
 
 
 
This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com