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 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