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 No 203 ON ADMISSIBILITY OF CREDIT ON LNG JETTIES

GST UPDATE No 203 ON ADMISSIBILITY OF CREDIT ON LNG JETTIES

The admissibility of input tax credit with respect to construction of plant and machineries which are affixed to Earth and are in the nature of civil constructions has been a matter of dispute since inception of GST laws. The input tax credit on civil constructions is restricted under the provisions of section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Recently, the matter regarding availability of input tax credit on LNG jetties constructed on sea shore was raised before Gujarat AAAR in the case of M/S SWAN LNG PVT LTD. The outcome of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.

 

M/s. Swan LNG Pvt. Ltd has entered into agreement with Gujarat Maritime Board and Government of Gujarat for development, construction, operation and maintenance of Liquefied Natural Gas i.e. LNG Port with a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit i.e. FRSU. After development of the said Import Terminal, the appellant intends to provide LNG regasification service to prospective customers. The appellant asked the question whether the jetties constructed by them will be considered as plant and machinery and if they can avail the ITC. They contended the jetties are constructed by them as foundation of plant and machinery and as per explanation to sec 17(6) of CGST Act, 2017, there is no bar on credit on foundation of plant and machinery but the explanation restricts ITC on land building or any kind of civil structure, telecommunication towers or the pipeline laid outside the factory premises. Accordingly, they contended that jetties should be treated as the foundation of plant and machinery which is necessary for outward supply and therefore ITC must be available.

 

After going through Sec 16 and Sec 17 of CGST Act, AAR contended that jetties are nothing but a civil structure. As per AAR, jetties are nothing but they are similar to the building made high above the sea shore. It cannot be considered as foundation instead it is a building made on the foundation. Moreover, to be considered as a plant and machinery, they must be located inside the factory. Therefore, AAR ruled that ITC on the same will not be available.

 

Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the AAAR against the ruling of AAR. AAAR held that allowing input tax credit on construction of foundation cannot be decided in isolation without deciding as to whether items to be fixed on it falls within the definition of plant and machinery or not and further the same would be used for making outward supply of goods or services or both. LNG Jetties are nothing but civil structures which are excluded from the definition of foundation and structural supports. The foundation that is allowed in definition of plant and machinery is that which fixes the plant and machinery to the earth making it immovable. If certain portion of LNG jetties is used for directly fixing plant and machineries, then it will not make jetties foundation for plant and machineries but they are only in the nature of civil structures. The AAAR held that the appellant has also not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim that LNG jetties which according to them are foundation of plant and machineries will be used for outward supply of goods or services or both. AAAR concluded that the LNG Jetties being built by the appellant are not in the nature of plant and machinery being foundation for equipment, apparatus, machinery for re-gasification to be installed thereon. Therefore, input tax credit on inputs, input services and capital goods for the purpose of building these LNG Jetties is not admissible.

 

The above decision is yet another example of a stringent view taken as regards availability of input tax credit on construction of plant and machinery on the premise that it is to be considered as civil structure. The tussle as regards whether construction can be treated as that of plant and machinery or civil structure has its roots from erstwhile indirect tax regime wherein Courts have concluded that if it is not possible to shift the installed plant and machinery to another site as if the plant is dismantled, it will lead to its destruction, it results into immovable property. Similar analogy is being adopted in GST regime too for ascertaining whether the plant and machinery can be considered as civil structure and whether input tax credit would be available on it. It is hoped that government provides leverage to such cases so that the ITC chain is not disrupted as installation of plant and machinery involves huge capital expenditure.
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