Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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