Kor Chems Vs Assistant Commissioner (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the GST proceedings arising from Input Tax Credit of Rs.29,25,000/- availed by the petitioner on acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot at Ankleshwar. The petitioner, a partnership firm trading in industrial chemicals, acquired leasehold rights from M/s. Myspace Infracon in February 2022 for Rs.1,91,75,000/-, inclusive of GST of Rs.29,25,000/-. GST was charged through tax invoice dated 17.02.2022 and the petitioner, believing the credit to be admissible, availed ITC in its GSTR-3B for February 2022. During inspection under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act, the petitioner stated that the credit had been taken under a bona fide belief.
It subsequently reversed the entire ITC through DRC-03 dated 21.01.2023 and discharged interest of Rs.4,44,280/- through DRC-03 dated 22.12.2023. Nevertheless, proceedings were initiated under Section 74(1) alleging that the ITC constituted blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d), culminating in an Order-in-Original confirming ITC demand, interest and an equal penalty of Rs.29,25,000/-, followed by dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner relied upon Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Ors., wherein assignment by sale or transfer of GIDC leasehold rights was held to constitute transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a taxable supply under Section 7 read with Schedule II and Schedule III, and also upon Special Civil Application No.18068 of 2025, which held that Section 17(5)(d) applies to construction-related expenditure and could not be invoked where no construction activity was undertaken. The Revenue was unable to controvert that the controversy was covered by these decisions.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.






