Page 118 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

444 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
made to the appellant and used by the appellant in furtherance of his business.
However, this is subject to the conditions and restrictions as specified in Section
16(2) and Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017
stipulates the situations wherein input tax credit shall not be available notwith-
standing anything contained in Section 16(1) of the said Act. We are concerned
with the provisions of clause (d) of Section 17(5) of the said Act.
13. Section 17(5)(d) reads as follows :
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16
and sub-section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in re-
spect of the following, namely :-
… … … … …
(d) Goods or Services or both received by a taxable person for
construction of an immovable property (other than Plant or Ma-
chinery) on his own account including when such goods or services
or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.
Explanation. - For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression “con-
struction” includes reconstruction, renovation, additions or alterations or
repairs, to the extent of capitalization, to the said immovable property.
14. It is seen from the above that input tax credit in general is not avail-
able for construction, reconstruction, renovation, addition, alteration or repair of
an immovable property even when such goods or services or both are used in the
course or furtherance of business. The exception to the restriction contained in
Section 17(5)(d) is regarding “Plant” or “Machinery. In other words, the tax paid
on the procurement of goods or services for construction of “Plant” or “Machin-
ery” would not be hit by the provisions of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act. The
words “Plant” and “Machinery” have not been defined separately under the GST
Acts. However, the expression “plant and machinery” is defined in the explana-
tion to Section 17 of the CGST Act and such definition is for the purposes of
Chapter V (Input Tax Credit) and Chapter VI (Registration) of the CGST Act.
15. It is the contention of the appellant that the definition of the expres-
sion “plant and machinery” as used in Chapter V and Chapter VI of the CGST
Act cannot be applied to interpret the words “plant” or “machinery” used in
clause (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act. We find that in ordinary usage ‘and’
is conjunctive and ‘or’ disjunctive. From the well-known dictum of the Supreme
Court that grammar is a good guide to meaning but is a bad master to dictate, it
will appear that there is no hard and fast rule as to the meaning of the word ' or’
and this word gets its proper meaning from the particular context from which it
has been used. Justice G.P. Singh in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation
(Thirteenth Edition) Chapter 7 page 485 has stated as follows :
“The word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive and ‘and’ is normally conjunctive
but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest inten-
tion of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. As stated by Scrutton
L.J, “You do sometimes read ‘or’ as ‘and’ in a statute. But you do not do it
unless you are obliged because ‘or’ does not generally mean ‘and’ and ‘and’
does not generally mean ‘or’. Further as pointed out by Lord Halsbury, the
reading of ‘or’ as ‘and’ is not to be resorted to, “unless some other part of
the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done”. Where
provision is clear and unambiguous the word ‘or’ cannot be read as ‘and’
by applying the principle of reading down. But if the literal reading of the
words produces an unintelligible or absurd result ‘and’ may be read for ‘or’
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  238