Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON APPLICABLE TAX RATE ON HAND SANITIZERS 101/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON APPLICABLE TAX RATE ON HAND SANITIZERS 101/2020-21

This update is to apprise about the recent ruling in case of Jabalpur Hotels Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) where the applicant has stated that he is constructing a hotel as a multistoried building and the provision of lift is essential for running the business. It has been mentioned that the room tariff of some of the rooms is proposed to be more than Rs.7500/- and therefore the restaurant would be paying GST @18% and availing input tax credit on goods and services used in course or for furtherance of business.
The applicant has sought ruling on availability of input tax credit of tax paid on Lift purchased and installed in the hotel building, particularly with reference to blocked credit as defined under the provisions of Section 17(5) of the GST Act. The application, inter-alia, mentions that the said Lift is being capitalized in the books of the company and depreciation as per the provisions of income Tax Act, 1961 is charged on the cost of lift less eligible credit of GST. Hence depreciation is being applied on the GST portion credit of which is eligible in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of CGST Act 201 7 without controverting the provisions of section 16(3) of CGST Act 201 7. It is therefore pleaded that the lift in question be termed as “Plant & machinery’ and hence out of purview of blocked credit in terms of Section 17(5)(d) in as much as ‘Plant & Machinery’ has been excluded from the definition of immovable property.
However, AAR ruled that the lift becomes part of the building and is not a separate thing per se. A lift does not have an identity when removed from the Building. Therefore, the lift cannot be said to be separate from a Building. Also, it has to be borne in mind that a lift is not an item that is purchased and sold. It is a customized mechanism for transportation, designed to suit a specific building. Upon piece by piece installation, it becomes an integral part of the building.
They added that accordingly, in the explanation relating to Plant and Machinery, beneath sub-section (6) of Section 17, while providing the meaning of the term plant and machinery, it has been clearly stated that Buildings and Civil Structures shall not be covered under the term Plant. However, while so clarifying, it has been accepted and understood that plant and machinery many a times requires support structure and / or foundation for installation and cannot work otherwise. Thus, civil structures and foundation as supporting structure for fastening of plant and machinery to earth has been included as part of plant and machinery.
To set to rest the disputes regarding the definition of the Plant, in light of the fact that input tax credit of works contract services, goods and services received as input for construction of immovable property on own account has been specifically put under the blocked credit list with the rider that it shall not apply to plant and machinery, it was incumbent that there should be clarity regarding classification of buildings and civil structures that were hitherto been classified as ‘Plant’
AAR said that the judicial citations relied upon by the applicant pertain to pre-GST era and since Section 17(5) of the CGST Act 2017 has put to rest all such issues in unambiguous terms, the legal citations adduced by applicant do not come to his rescue. On the contrary, we find that the identical issue has been decided by the learned Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka in the matter of M/s. Tarun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangaluru vide order dtd. 30.09.2019. Even though an Advance Ruling does not have any precedential value, there is a lot persuasive value of the ratio decidendi in the matter of this AAR. Therefore, it has been ruled that the applicant in the instant case shall not be entitled to avail input tax credit of tax paid on procuring the lift to be installed in the hotel building which in turn is intended to be used for providing taxable service, in terms of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act 2017.
AAR has neglected the case references put forward by the applicant in the application on the fact that those belong to pre-GST era. If the facts and findings are similar to any case already decided, then it is the legal responsibility of the AAR to consider those decisions. It is clearly evident that the term “foundation and structural support” has been litigatory affair since the day of implementation of GST. Significant portions of input tax credit in GST have been denied by the department under the shed of confusion for foundation and structural supports. It has been consistently held that the parts, components, accessories come into existence before the installation of the machinery and credit of taxes paid on the same cannot be denied even if they become part of the immovable property after installation of the plant and machinery. -
i) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax vs. India Cements Ltd. 2014(3 10) E.L.T. 636 (Mad).
ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mils Ltd.2010(255) ELT 481 (S.C.)
iii) Saraswati Sugar Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi Ill 201 1 (270) E.L.T. 465(S.c.)
Lift in a hotel is used in the course or furtherance of business, as it approximately impossible to run a multi storied hotel without a lift in the present scenario.
However, we form an opinion that if the installed machinery which is affixed to Earth gets the character of permanence and after its installation, it is not possible to relocate the said machinery to another place except by dismantling it as waste and scrap, then it can be considered that the said machinery is immovable property. However, on the contrary, if the machinery is affixed to Earth only for wobble free and stable operation and can be shifted to another location, the said machinery is movable and is not to be considered as immovable property.
The disputed term clearly requires a wide clarification from the government so that the assessee has a clear picture while availing the credit relating to such structural supports.

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/@capradeepjain21 
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