Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON NO ITC ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTION 87/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON NO ITC ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTION 87/2020-21
Construction services/works contract have always faced the wrath of lawmakers as far as credit is concerned under CENVAT rules. The same plight continues under GST – probably because works contract services result in the creation of immovable property, which is outside the purview of GST.
As per Section 16, every registered person is eligible to take ITC of goods and services intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business subject to fact that other conditions as mentioned in section 16(2) are fulfilled.
Section 17(5) restricts ITC on certain goods or services although intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. According to Section 17(5)(c), ITC shall not be available for works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service.
Section 17(5) (d) specifically estates that ITC on goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business will not be available for entitlement in GST.
Explanation.- For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression “construction ” includes re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalisation, to the said immovable property;
On the same line, AAR Gujarat in case of Deendayal Port Trust (erstwhile Kandla Port Trust) Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/02/2020 dated 11.03.2020 ruled that The Input Tax Credit shall be NOT be available under the CGST Act, 2017, on the project development services like Programme management consultancy, Marketing Consultancy, Land levelling and other related works, Roads, Water, Electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure and other related works for development of SIPC i.e. construction of an immovable property.
The applicant had been directed by the Ministry of Shipping to prepare a master plan comprising future projects and for utilization of land resources for developing a port based smart city. Keeping in view the above directions and vision of the government, applicant is developing one of India’s first Smart Industrial Port City (SIPC) as part of the Sagarmala project.
The applicant is at present incurring various project development expenses like
i. Programme management consultancy
ii. Marketing Consultancy
iii. Land levelling and other related works
iv. Roads
v. Water, electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure
vi. Other related works for developing SIPC.
 
AAR ruled that the said project development is nothing but construction of an immovable property and any project development services or goods or works contract used for construction of an immovable property shall attract the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, which specifically deny ITC in respect of works contract services or goods and services used for construction of an immovable property.
Therefore the said project development services of Programme management consultancy, Marketing Consultancy, Land levelling and other related works, Roads, Water, electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure and other related works for developing SIPC shall not be eligible for ITC under the CGST Act, 2017.
We are already aware of the Landmark Judgment in case of Safari Retreats Pvt Ltd Vs C.C Of CGST 2019-TIOL-1088-HC-ORISSA-GST wherein there was same issue that whether ITC is available on the goods/services used for construction of mall if the supplier intends to let out the same in future and is liable to pay GST on the lease rentals. The High Court pronounced that the provisions of Section 17(5)(d) is to be read down as the very purpose of the credit is to give benefit to the assessee. If the assessee is required to pay GST on the rental income arising out of the investment on which he has paid GST then the assessee is eligible to an input credit of GST paid on inward supplies used for the construction of such property. However, the department has preferred appeal against this decision in Supreme Court and the matter is still pending for final decision.
The logic profounded by the High Court is logical as when GST is payable on lease rentals, the input tax credit for goods or services used in construction of mall should be allowed. The decision of the High Court acts as binding precedent in similar cases of ITC denial and restrictions that frustrate the objective of removal of cascading effect of taxes. Denying ITC on goods and services in relation to immovable property is justifiable only if there is no GST liability on further supply of such immovable property. It is hoped that the Apex Court affirms the decision of Orissa High Court allowing the input tax credit on construction of mall which is further let out. 
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