Page 150 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

476 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
Thus the essential character of “immovable property”, as emerges from the
above discussion, relevant to the present context is that it is attached to the earth,
or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, or forming part of the
land and not agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply.
6.6 Thus from above discussion it gets crystal clear that the instant con-
tract consists of transfer of property in goods, coupled with supply of services
which leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is a case of Works contract, cov-
ered under the definition of “Works contract” defined under Section 2(119) of the
CGST Act, 2017 supra. Works contract, covers in its ambit only certain works
performed on immovable property. The details of works as enumerated above
and as forthcoming from the contract, goes to show that the said project of light-
ing of Plant Road, Boundary and Watchtower awarded to the Contractor by the
Appellant is not as simple or movable. The work consists of an entire system
comprising a variety of different structures which are installed after a lot of prior
work which involves detailed Designing, Engineering, Supply, Civil work, Civil
engineering, Ground work, Foundation work, Fabrication, Erection of Building
Steel Structures & Sheeting and Erection of Electrical items etc. The magnitude of
work done is enormous and these are tailored specifically to fit the dimensions
and orientation of the needs of the project. It does not appear prudent or for that
matter viable to move these items from one place to the other. Thus, the project
fulfills the conditions of it being an immovable property.
6.7 In the aforesaid context, Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the
case of M/s. T.T.G. Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [decided] on 7 May,
2004 in Appeal (Civil) 10911 of 1996 [2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)], wherein the
contract was for the design, supply, supervision of erection and commissioning
of four sets of Hydraulic Mudguns and Tap Hole Drilling Machines required for
blast furnace and the issue was whether the same is immovable property ob-
served as under :-
“Keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgments noticed above,
and having regard to the facts of this case, we have no doubt in our mind
that the mudguns and the drilling machines erected at site by the appellant
on a specially made concrete platform at a level of 25 feet above the ground
on a base plate secured to the concrete platform, brought into existence not
excisable goods but immovable property which could not be shifted with-
out first dismantling it and then re-erecting it at another site. We have earli-
er noticed the processes involved and the manner in which the equipments
were assembled and erected. We have also noticed the volume of the ma-
chines concerned and their weight. Taking all these facts into consideration
and having regard to the nature of structure erected for basing these ma-
chines, we are satisfied that the judicial member of the CEGAT was right in
reaching the conclusion that what ultimately emerged as a result of pro-
cesses undertaken and erections done cannot be described as “goods” with-
in the meaning of the Excise Act and exigible to excise duty.”
6.8 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case took note of the fact
regarding the volume and weight of these machines are such that there is noth-
ing like assembling them at ground level and then lifting them to a height of 25
feet for taking to the case house floor and then to the platform over which it is
mounted and erected. It observed that the machines cannot be lifted in an as-
sembled condition and after taking note of these facts, it concluded that the same
is immovable property. The Court further held that it cannot be disputed that such

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  150