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- NO CREDIT AVAILABLE ON LIFTS PROCURED AND INSTALLED IN HOTELS 103/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON- NO CREDIT AVAILABLE ON LIFTS PROCURED AND INSTALLED IN HOTELS 103/2020-21
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