Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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