Page 173 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : KONKAN LNG PRIVATE LIMITED 499
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 499 (App. A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
UNDER GST, MAHARASHTRA
Smt. Sungita Sharma and Shri Rajiv Jalota, Members
IN RE : KONKAN LNG PRIVATE LIMITED

Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/14/2019-20, dated 6-11-2019 in Appeal
No. MAH/GST-AAAR-14/2019-20
1
Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Plant and Machinery - Breakwater wall de-
signed to protect jetty, which brings to LNG, from high tide and forceful sea
waves - Breakwater wall constructed on sea to protect ship from high waves or
accropods that are essential part of it cannot be called as machinery or appa-
ratus or equipment either in common parlance or in technical parlance - Civil
structure like a breakwater wall cannot be associated to ‘plant and machinery’
or ‘machinery, apparatus or equipment’ - Issue as to whether it was used for
making outward supplies not needed to be examined - Section 17(5)(d) of Cen-
tral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - The clauses in work document shows that
break water not only comprises piling of accropods on top of each other but involves ex-
tensive civil work and foundation laying in order to build the break water wall and the
accropods is only a part of it. It is therefore an immoveable structure though not plant
and machinery. It is seen from the explanation that land, building and civil structures
are specifically excluded from the scope of ‘plant and machinery’. Therefore even though
assuming that the structure is a plant and machinery it will be excluded by virtue of it
being a civil structure. The extensive earthwork as well as civil work which has gone into
the making of the breakwater wall makes it clear that the entire thing is nothing but a
civil structure. The terminology itself says that it is a wall. [paras 26, 27, 28]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mazgoan Dock Limited
— 191 ITR 460 — Distinguished ..................................................................................... [Paras 19.5, 28]
Dr. B. Venkata Rao Hospital — 243 ITR 81 (SC) — Referred ........................................................... [Para 18.4]
Karnataka Power Corporation — (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) — Referred ......................................... [Para 18.5]
[Order]. - Proceedings : At the outset, we would like to make it clear that
the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for
certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dis-
similar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to
the same provisions under the MGST Act.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”) by M/s. Konkan
LNG Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) against the
Advance Ruling No. GST-ARN-123/2018-19/B-56, dated 24-5-2019 [2019 (27)
G.S.T.L. 112 (A.A.R. - GST)].
Brief facts of the case
1. That the appellant is the company having its LNG regasification

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 112 (A.A.R. - GST).
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  293