Page 139 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : SATYESH BRINECHEM PRIVATE LIMITED 97
erty, a specific exception is made with regard to “plant and machinery”. The
phrase “plant and machinery” has been defined in Explanation to Section 17 of
the GST Acts which reads as under :
“Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter and Chapter VI, the
expression “plant and machinery” means apparatus, equipment and ma-
chinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for
making outward supply of goods or services or both and includes such
foundation and structural supports but excludes -
(i) land, building or any other civil structures;
(ii) telecommunication towers; and
(iii) pipelines laid outside the factory premises.”
2.6 Thus any apparatus, equipment and machinery which is used for
making outward supply of goods or services qualifies as plant and machinery.
Land, building or any other civil structures which are not as such directly part of
the manufacturing process but only play a supporting role are excluded from the
purview of “plant and machinery”. Further specific exclusions are telecommuni-
cation towers and pipelines laid outside the factory premises.
None of the exclusion as contained in Section 17 of the GST Acts satisfied and
hence, input tax credit is admissible :
2.7 Input tax credit is inadmissible in respect of some transactions as
stated in Section 17 of the GST Acts. It is respectfully submitted that “bunds”
does not fall under any of the restrictive clauses of Section 17 of the GST Acts and
hence input tax credit is admissible to the applicant.
Bunds are directly used in the manufacturing process and, hence, they qualify as
“plant & machinery” :
2.8 It is respectfully submitted that bunds are directly used in the man-
ufacturing process and hence they squarely fall within the ambit of “plant and
machinery” as defined in the Explanation to Section 17 of the GST Acts. It is
therefore respectfully submitted that the applicant is entitled to input tax credit
of tax paid on goods and services used for construction of bunds.
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely supports the applicant :
2.9 The applicant is squarely supported by the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh - 157 ITR 86 (S.C.). In this case the Supreme Court
held that technical know-how in the shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans,
processing data and other literature falls within the definition of the term ‘plant’.
While taking this decision, though a number of decisions were cited before it,
Hon’ble Supreme Court thought it fit to refer only to 3 to 4 decisions and pro-
ceeded to make following observations :
“The classic definition of ’plant’ was given by Lindley, L.J. in Yar-
mouth v. France [1887] 19 Q.B.D. 647, a case in which it was decided that a
cart-horse was plant within the meaning of Section 1(1) of Employers’ Lia-
bility Act, 1880. The relevant passage occurring at page 658 of the Report
runs thus :
“There is no definition of plant in the Act : but, in its ordinary
sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a business man for
carrying on his business-not his stock-in-trade which he buys or
makes for sale; but all goods and chattels, fixed or movable, live or
dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his business.”
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  139