Case Law Details
In re M/s. Sundharams Private Limited (AAR Maharashtra)
Laying of the paver blocks cannot amount to works contract service for construction of the immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of CGST Act since, the expression “construction” for the purpose of section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) includes reconstruction, renovation, addition or alteration or repairs to the extent of capitalization to the said immoveable property. In the case of the applicant the expenditure on the paver block has been booked as revenue expenditure in the books of account and therefore the same will not amount to construction of immovable property. Accordingly, the input tax credit claimed by the applicant cannot be hit by restriction placed u/s. 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF CORRIGENDUM ORDER OF AAR MAHARASHTRA
1. In the case of the applicant, M/s. Sundharams Private Limited, holder of GSTIN Number 27AAACS4949PIZN, a Ruling was passed under Sections 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide Advance Ruling Order No. GST-ARA-36/2019-20/B — 41 Mumbai, dated 18.03.2020.
The aforesaid applicant has brought to our notice vide letter dated 09.08.2020, received in this office on 19.10.2020, that an error has been noticed under the observation part in para No.27, detailing applicant’s submissions, wherein it was mentioned that “Laying of the blocks cannot amount to works contract service for construction of the innovable property under section 17(5)(c) of CGST Act since, the expression construction” for the purpose of section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) includes reconstruction, renovation, addition or alteration or repairs to the extent of capitalization to the said mmoveable property. In the case of the applicant the expenditure on the paver block has not been booked as revenue expenditure in the books of account and therefore the same will not amount to construction of immovable property. Accordingly, the input tax credit claimed by the applicant cannot be hit by restriction placed u/s. 17(5) (c) of the CGST Act.”.
2. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that such typographical error has indeed occurred in the said para 2.7 and needs correction. Therefore, this corrigendum order is issued to correct the above mentioned error. Hence, now para 2.7 may be read as under:-
“2.7 Laying of the paver blocks cannot amount to works contract service for construction of the immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of CGST Act since, the expression “construction” for the purpose of section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) includes reconstruction, renovation, addition or alteration or repairs to the extent of capitalization to the said immoveable property. In the case of the applicant the expenditure on the paver block has been booked as revenue expenditure in the books of account and therefore the same will not amount to construction of immovable property. Accordingly, the input tax credit claimed by the applicant cannot be hit by restriction placed u/s. 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act.”
