Page 94 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

420 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
5.7 The principles laid down in the judgments discussed above stand
good under all statutes unless any specific definition is available under the stat-
ute. What we want to say is that these principles cannot be circumscribed to any
particular statute. An elaborate reproduction of the principles as laid down in the
judgments along with their facts has made things clearer for us. The principles
when seen in the light of the facts of the present case help us see as under :
• The impugned car parking system, to be installed on a vacant plot
of land, by way of laying of Paver Blocks, does not result into sup-
ply as chattel. In fact, before installation, there can be no goods as
such which could be called a ‘parking system’.
• The system requires substantial work of interlocking of the Paver
Blocks using support from the boundary walls of the said land to be
done at the site to be called a ‘parking system’.
• Once made operational the ‘parking system’ obtains a state of per-
manency. It is not such as can be easily removed from the existing
place and put into place at some other location.
It is also not such that there is an intention to put it into some other place. Fur-
ther, apart from that the goods cannot be re-erected as in the previous place as
the requirement of each place is different.
5.8 From the submissions made by the applicant we find that the main
reason for use of paver blocks is to keep the tyres of the vehicles in good condi-
tion with no wear and tear, to have longevity, durability and flexibility to reuse.
The flexibility to reuse does not mean that blocks will be removed and re-erected
frequently. They are meant to be permanently fixed to earth but whenever the
need arises the applicant may remove them and re-erect. Hence we conclude that
the applicant would not use the paver blocks as in the subject case with an inten-
tion to remove it and use the same as a movable property.
5.9 The facts of the case cited by the jurisdictional officer is similar to
the facts in the subject case and therefore the decision and reasoning in the case
cited i.e. “Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others v. Indian Oil Corpora-
tion Ltd., can be made applicable in the present facts of the matter to rule that
paver blocks are to be considered as immovable property in the subject case. In
the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the petroleum storage tanks
are structures or things attached to the land and were exigible to the property
tax. The Hon’ble Court observed that, the tanks, though, are resting on earth on
their own weight without being fixed with nuts and bolts, have permanently
been erected without being shifted from place to place and this permanency is
the test. The fact that no nuts and bolts were used to embed the tank to the earth
by itself is not conclusive. Though the witness stated that the tank is capable of
being shifted, as a fact the tanks were never shifted from the places of erection.
By scientific process, the tanks stand on their own weight on the earth at the
place of erection as a permanent structure.
5.9.1 In the subject case, the Paver Blocks are also placed on their own
weight on the earth at the place of erection as a permanent structure. The process
of laying paver blocks includes preparation of base (on land) with stone and
dust, rolling them very firmly, adding coarse aggregate on the surface and roll-
ing again, application of Grit powder of 30 mm on the surface and after levelling,
the paver blocks are placed on the surface manually. Thus, it can be observed
that, the paver blocks are not simply arranged on land. The jurisdictional officer
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  94