Page 139 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : P.K. MAHAPATRA 465
(g) That, under Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017, the expression “plant
and machinery” is defined as apparatus, equipment and machinery
fixed to earth by foundation or structural support used for making
outward supply of goods or services or both and includes such
foundation and structural support.
(h) That, the lighting system works are used for illuminating the plant
area, lighting arterial roads, boundary wall and watchtower which
are essential to carry the manufacturing operations as the steel plant
it is a continuous process plant which will run round the clock.
(i) The Appellant submits that they are entitled to input credit for the
following reasons :
(a) Flood Light Fittings, Transformers and other electrical appli-
ances shall be regarded as ‘plant & machinery’ as they meet
the test of apparatus, equipment or machinery.
(b) The expression ‘plant and machinery’ also includes mechani-
cal items. The flood light fittings, transformers and other elec-
trical appliances can be regarded as ‘apparatus’ or ‘equip-
ment’ ‘machinery. As they do not fall in the exclusion clause,
credit shall be eligible.
(c) It is submitted that the restriction is limited only to buildings
and civil structures.
(d) The tubular poles, lamp post and foundation required to host
the above mentioned can be regarded as supporting struc-
tures and foundation of plant and machinery.
(j) That, the term “plant”, the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering
House Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AP, 2002-TIOL-
665-SC-IT, observed as below :-
“In other words, plant would include any article or object fixed or
movable, live or dead, used by a businessman for carrying on his
business and it is not necessarily confined to an apparatus which is
used for mechanical operations or processes or is employed in me-
chanical or industrial business. In order to qualify as plant, the arti-
cle must have some degree of durability, as for instance, in Hinton
v. Maden & Ireland Ltd. [1960] 39 ITR 357 (HL), knives and lasts hav-
ing an average life of three years used in manufacturing shoes were
held to be plant. IN CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC) =
2002-TIOL-642-SC-IT the respondent, which ran a hotel, installed
sanitary and pipeline fittings in one of its branches in respect
whereof it claimed development rebate and the question was
whether the sanitary and pipeline fittings installed fell within the
definition of plant given in section 10(5) of the 1922 Act which was
similar to the definition given in section 43(3) of the 1961 Act and
this court after approving the definition of plant given by Lindley
L.J. in Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647, as expounded in Jar-
rold v. John Good and Sons Ltd. [1962] 40 TC 681 (CA), held that sani-
tary and pipeline fittings fell within the definition of plant.”
(k) That, relying on the above definition of the Apex Court, the Gujarat
High Court in Pipavav Defense and Offshore Engineering Company Ltd.
[2017-TIOL-1018-HC-AHM-VAT] observed as below :-

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  139