Page 186 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

504 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
Input Tax Credit (ITC) (Contd.)
it has to be dismantled and reassembled or re-erected at another place, it
would be termed as immovable - In view of aforesaid laying of paver
blocks ibid amounts to construction of immovable property - Input tax
credit not admissible - Section 17(5)(d) of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017/Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re :
Sundharams Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) ........................ 414
— Paver Blocks for laying in Parking Area - Immovable Property - Applicant
taking alternative plea that even if laying of paver blocks amounts to
construction of immovable property, ITC should be allowed to them on
the basis of Orissa High Court’s decision in 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 341 (Ori.) -
HELD : Section 17(5)(d) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,
bars a taxable person from availing ITC on construction of immovable
property except specified Plant and Machinery - Taking credit is barred
even if inputs and input services are used in course and furtherance of
business - In instant case applicant has himself built the immovable
property for which he has received Paver Blocks - Case law relied upon
ibid is distinguishable as property in that case was given on lease -
Provision ibid was not held as ultra vires in this judgment - In any case,
said judgment has not attained finality because, Departments SLP against
it has been admitted by Apex Court - ITC not admissible - Section
17(5)(d) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Maharashtra
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Sundharams Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST -
Mah.) ......................................... 414
— remedy for procedural lapse, writ jurisdiction not maintainable - See
under WRIT JURISDICTION ........................... 137
— Transitional credit - Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - Technical glitches in
GSTN - Time-limit to avail credit - Delhi High Court in Brand Equity case
[2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 10 (Del.)] holding that time-limit of 90 days prescribed
in Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 not mandatory
but directory in nature - Directions issued to Authorities to publicise said
judgment including by uploading it on their website so that all assessees,
who were unable to upload Form/GST Trans-1, could do so on or before
30th June, 2020, not complied with - Decision not stayed by Supreme
Court - Authorities under obligation to abide by directions issued therein
by adequately publicising said decision and uploading it on their website
as also by opening its common portal to enable the petitioner and all
similarly placed parties to upload Form GST Trans-1, for claiming Cenvat
credit - Direction to ensure compliance of said decision by 19-6-2020,
particularly since cut of date fixed by Court in said case was 30th June,
2020, which would leave only ten clear days for petitioner and similarly
placed assessees to take necessary steps — Mangla Hoist P. Ltd. v. Union of India
(Del.) ......................................... 143
— Transitional credit - Timeline of compliance - Failure to file GST TRAN-2
before due date to technical glitches - Even if timeline prescribed Rule
117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 are directory in nature
not to mean credit can be availed in perpetuity - Transitory provisions, as
word indicates have to be given its due meaning - Transition from pre-
GST Regime to GST Regime not been smooth - In absence of any specific
provisions under GST Act, in terms of residuary provisions of Limitation
Act, a period of three years should be guiding principle - Thus, a period
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  186