Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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