Page 138 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

464 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
(i) land, building or any other civil structures;
(ii) telecommunication towers; and
(iii) pipelines laid outside the factory premises.
(d) From the above, it is pertinent to test whether the impugned works
are regarded as ‘plant & machinery’ or foundation or structural
support of plant and machinery and does not fall in any of the 3 ex-
clusions given in the Explanation.
(e) That, it can be observed from the AAR, the order has not examined
the meaning of ‘plant and machinery’ as provided in the Explana-
tion but confined to examining if it is movable or immovable prop-
erty. It is submitted that even any immovable property, once quali-
fies as ‘plant & machinery’, they stand excluded from the restriction
and the credit is eligible not only for plant and machinery but in-
cludes their foundation and supporting structures.
(f) That, it is evident from para 5.14 of the impugned order, the scope
of work under the agreement dated 10-3-2017 with M/s. Bajaj Elec-
tricals Ltd. is completely misunderstood and misappreciated by the
AAR. The Appellant submits the observations of the AAR in the
impugned order are incorrect for the following reasons :-
 It is settled law that clauses in the agreement should be read
as a whole and not in isolation to understand the tenor and
intention of the contracting parties.
 The civil work in the contract is to provide to foundation and
structural support to the structures and equipment in ques-
tion and nothing more. The foundation and structural sup-
port is given to the lighting equipment in order to ensure
their stability and wobble - free operation. In fact, the expla-
nation in Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 defines ‘plant and
machinery’ to include structural support and foundation
thereof.
 On a perusal of the contract in its entirety, it is evident that
only an insignificant portion of the contract price is paid to-
wards erection of plant and equipment. Therefore, the fact
that there is erection work, (which is insignificant to ensure
the operation of the structures in question) should be no rea-
son to deny the benefit of the input tax credit to the Appel-
lant.
 The price adjustment clause (Appendix 4 to the Contract) is
also misunderstood by the Authority. Reference to building
steel structurers and sheeting would not necessarily imply
supply of building steel structurers as part of the Appellant’s
contract. As is evident from the billing schedule, there is no
supply of building steel structures by the contractor.
 Also, there is no construction of boundary walls/watch tower
by the contractor, as understood by the Authority. The con-
tractor’s role is limited to supply of lighting system to the
plant road, watchtower and the boundary walls.

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  138