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 on ITC Admissibility on Detachable Glass Partitions 54/2020-21

GST Update on ITC Admissibility on Detachable Glass Partitions 54/2020-21

The ITC admissibility on goods that are affixed or attached to Earth is often the point of dispute as there are restrictions as regards availability of ITC on construction of immovable property under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. In the present update, we seek to analyse the recent decision pronounced by the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Karnataka, in the case of M/s We work India Management Private Limited wherein the issue was regarding admissibility of ITC on the detachable sliding and stackable glass which can be moved and affixed anywhere. The AAR Karnataka vide order no. KAR ADRG 106/2019 dated 30.09.2019 ruled that detachable sliding and stackable glass partitions used in construction of workspaces are immovable in nature and hence are not eligible for Input tax credit. The AAR denied ITC by holding that the detachable sliding and stackable glass partitions are fixed to the building to create office space and amounts to construction of immovable property.

 

It was contended by the applicant that the credit restriction provided under section 17(5)(d) is with respect to “goods or services used for construction of immovable property” and so only the goods directly used in construction of immovable property are covered by this prohibition. The term “for” is specific and has narrow implication as compared to the term “in relation to” and since the term “for” is used, the ITC is not restricted.

The meaning of term immovable property was also interpreted and it was contended that as the term has not been defined under CGST Act, so reference needs to be made to section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as follows-

Immovable property shall include land benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or, permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.

 In view of the above, the appellant submitted that the detachable sliding and stacking glass partition are fixed with the help of nuts and bolts to wooden flooring only to provide stability and they are neither rooted to the earth not embedded in the earth nor attached for the permanent beneficial enjoyment as the same can be detached and re-used. Reliance was also placed on the advance ruling in case of Nipro India Corporation Private Limited and decision of Odisha High court in case of Safari Retreats Private Limited allowing the ITC of goods and services used for construction of shopping mall meant for letting out. It was also contended that said glass is not capitalised as immovable property in the books of accounts but is being capitalised under “furniture and fixture” in accordance with prevalent accounting standards.

The AAAR referred to the two-fold tests consistently used by many courts to decide whether the item is permanently attached to earth -

(i) the extent of annexation and

(ii) the object of annexation.

The object of annexation test lays down that where a movable property gets annexed with an immovable property, if the intent of annexation is of permanent beneficial enjoyment of the immovable property, then the fixture becomes an immovable property. If the intent of annexation is the beneficial enjoyment of the movable property, then the property still remains movable.

Applying the above tests to this case, it was held that the glass partitions are not permanent and are not embedded to the earth. They can be dismantled and moved according to the requirements of the clients of the appellant. Although they are fixed to the earth with nuts and bolts, they can be dismantled without demolishing the civil structure. Therefore, the detachable sliding and stackable glass partitions do not qualify as immovable property and are not hit by the restriction placed under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

In our opinion, the reasoning adopted by the AAAR is in alignment with the ratio laid down and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the erstwhile Central Excise regime. In the Central Excise Laws, one of the prominent dispute was regarding permanence of machinery installed and its taxability because Central Excise Duty was levied on manufacture of excisable goods. It is well settled that goods are movable in nature and so if installation of machinery lead to emergence of immovable property, central excise duty was not leviable. The tests for determining whether the activity resulted in emergence of immovable property was laid down in various judgements rendered by the Supreme Court. Reliance may be placed on the following decisions:-

·        TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUS. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.)]
 

·        T.T.G. INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)]

·        COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD VERSUS SOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS [2010 (252) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)]

In all the above cited decisions, it was concluded 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 analogy adopted by the Apex Court has been followed by the AAAR while determining whether the detachable glass is to be considered as immovable property for denying the input tax credit or not. Hence, the ratio of decisions rendered in erstwhile regime is of immense importance as they aid in arriving at conclusions in GST regime as well.

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