Blog

A victory with caveats for taxpayers, a vindication for the Revenue on the vires of Section 17(5)(c)/(d), and a subtle call for correction in the distinction between "or" and "and" (para 43) A valuable judgment for tax students to explore!

It isn't a celebration for those constructing/ed immovable property by taking works contract (material + labour resulting in immovable property) - whose fight was to seek declaration of S 17(5)(c), ultravires.

Beyond the summary/conclusion, the arguments that were persuasive and those that were not, provide valuable insights on the subject and guide our next steps. Here's a breif of counter submissions:

Assessee Arguments:

- Violation of equality before law by denying ITC to those Undertaking construction for commercial letting/similar activity
- Intelligible differentia on counts of
a) Person Constructing immovable property vs. Person letting such property 
b) on break in itc chain - b/w those into same nature of business vs those intending construction for commercial letting 
c) instances referred in clause (c) and (d) cannot be treated equally due to usage of "and" and "or" respectively b/w plant/ machinery 
- Some definitions not given - "on its own account" "plant or machinery"
 - ITC restriction and collection of gst would result in unjust enrichment of state - Violation of A 300A
 - Reliance placed on statement of objects and reasons that Cascading effect is to be removed 
- Functionality Test for businessmen - building is "plant"
- Non obstante clause in 17(5) didn't intend to even override Sec 16

Revenue's Argument:

- ITC is not a fundamental right 
- The test of vice of discrimination in taxing statute is less rigorous 
- clause (c) & (d), even if discriminatory weren't manifestly discriminatory 
- or to be read as and - definition to apply for both clauses. Reading it as it is would make it discriminatory 
- If "and" "or" differentiation is held right, it would lead to distortion due to undue benefit in various other provisions of Act and is only a mistake in legislature:
a) Depreciation + itc can be claimed wrt plant
b) 18(6) & 29(5) shall not apply for plant
- Relying of Income Tax judgments to classify building as plant would lead to hostile discrimination 
- Since there is no gst on sale of immovable property, no itc to be allowed. If itc is claimed and sale is done post 5 years without gst, it woul