ITC Denied on Pre-Engineering Building and Embedded Crane Support Systems, Based on Structural Fixation, Capitalisation, and Civil Nature: AAR Gujarat.
Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of M/s. HMSU Rollers (India) Pvt. Ltd. has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on a Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) and its embedded crane support systems. The ruling, dated April 30, 2025, provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of works contract services and capital goods used for the construction of immovable property, particularly in an industrial context. The AAR denied the ITC based on the grounds that the PEB and its integrated components constitute immovable property and do not qualify as “plant and machinery” under the exceptions provided in the CGST Act. This article delves into the factual matrix, legal provisions, and the rationale behind the ruling, analyzing its implications for the industry.
Facts of the Case
The applicant, M/s. HMSU Rollers (India) Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing of rollers and is currently undertaking an expansion of its operations. As part of this expansion, the company is installing a Pre-Engineered Building (PEB). A key feature of this PEB is that it is specifically designed to provide structural support for a 10-ton overhead crane. The structural dependency of the crane on the PEB was certified by a Chartered Engineer.
Questions on which Advance Ruling was Sought
The applicant sought a ruling on the following key issues:
1. Whether proportionate ITC is admissible for works contract services used in the construction of the PEB and its associated crane infrastructure.
2. Whether ITC can be claimed on capital goods, such as crane rails, electrification systems, and other supports, which are essential for the operation of the overhead crane within the industrial shed.
3. The admissibility of ITC on installation and erection services for the PEB, which is supplied for the construction of an immovable property.
Legal Framework Under GST
The eligibility of ITC is fundamentally governed by Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows a registered person to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. However, Section 17(5) imposes certain restrictions on this eligibility. The relevant clauses in this case are:
- Section 17(5)(c): This clause restricts ITC on “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): This provision blocks ITC on “goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.”
The Explanation to Section 17(5) is critical. It defines “construction” to include re-construction, renovation, additions, or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalization, to the said immovable property. Furthermore, Explanation 1 clarifies the scope of “plant and machinery”:
- What it is: “Plant and machinery” means apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for making outward supply of goods or services or both.
- What it is not: It specifically excludes (i) land, building or any other civil structures; (ii) telecommunication towers; and (iii) pipelines laid outside the factory premises.
The ruling also considered retrospective amendments made through the Finance Act, 2025.
Observations and Ruling by the AAR
The AAR systematically analyzed the applicant’s query against the backdrop of the aforementioned legal provisions.
1. PEB as Immovable Property: The AAR observed that the PEB structure and the gantry beams are civil structures that are fixed to the earth, thereby forming part of an immovable property. Since these assets were capitalized in the applicant’s books of accounts, they squarely fall under the definition of “construction” as per the explanation to Section 17(5).
2. Exclusion from Plant and Machinery: The authority ruled that civil structures like factory buildings and gantry beams do not qualify as “plant and machinery”. It highlighted that Explanation 1 to Section 17(5) explicitly excludes “building or any other civil structures.” The AAR reasoned that even if the gantry beam is functionally essential to support the crane, the beam itself is embedded within the building’s structure and is thus excluded. Therefore, as per Section 17(5)(c) and (d), ITC on the works contract for the PEB and the gantry is blocked.
3. Crane Components as Part of Immovable Property: Regarding the admissibility of ITC on crane rails, electrification, and other capital goods, the AAR stated that these components lose their identity as standalone equipment once they are embedded or fixed into the civil structure (PEB). By becoming structurally integrated, they become part of the immovable property itself and are not considered movable equipment. Consequently, these items are ineligible for ITC under the “plant and machinery” exception, and credit is disallowed under Section 17(5)(d).
4. Jurisprudence and Amendments: The AAR acknowledged a ruling by the AAAR, Tamil Nadu in the case of Coral Manufacturing Works, which had previously allowed proportionate ITC on structural supports for cranes. However, the Gujarat AAR distinguished this case on two grounds: firstly, the earlier ruling predated the Supreme Court’s decision (likely in Safari Retreats Pvt Ltd.) and the Finance Act, 2025 amendment, and secondly, rulings from other states are not binding
Conclusion of the AAR
The final ruling was unequivocal:
- ITC is not allowed on the PEB structure, gantry beams, and civil foundations.
- ITC is disallowed on capital goods like crane rails and electrification systems that are embedded into the structure.
- The AAR reiterated that ITC is only permissible on plant and machinery that is not embedded into a civil structure and is demonstrably used in making an outward taxable supply.
Analysis and Industry Impact
This ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of the ITC credit blockade related to the construction of immovable property. The key takeaway is the authority’s focus on the nature of the structure itself, rather than its utility. While the PEB and its components were undeniably for business use, their classification as “immovable property” and “civil structure” was the deciding factor.
For industries, especially in the manufacturing and infrastructure sectors, this ruling has significant implications:
- Capital Budgeting: Companies must carefully dissect their capital expenditure projects. The cost of civil structures and any plant or machinery that is structurally integrated will have to be budgeted inclusive of the GST component, as ITC will not be available.
- Distinction is Key: A clear line must be drawn between machinery that is simply “fixed to earth” for operational stability and equipment that is “embedded” into the civil structure itself. The former may be eligible for ITC, while the latter, as this ruling shows, is not.
- Contract Structuring: Businesses may need to structure their contracts with suppliers and works contractors carefully to delineate the costs of civil works versus the supply and installation of non-embedded machinery to maximize legitimate ITC claims.
The reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Safari Retreats Pvt Ltd. is pertinent. In that case, the court allowed ITC on goods and services used for the construction of a mall, which was then leased out (a taxable supply), reading down the provision that blocked credit. However, the AAR in the present case appears to have focused on the specific exclusion of “buildings and other civil structures” from the definition of “plant and machinery,” a distinction that makes the credit unavailable for self-use construction, even if for business purposes.
This ruling from the Gujarat AAR serves as a crucial reminder for the industry to navigate the intricate provisions of ITC with caution, particularly when it comes to capital assets that blend the characteristics of machinery and civil structures.
Author Bio
