Page 175 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : P.K. MAHAPATRA 109
can be regarded as ‘apparatus’ or ‘equipment’ ‘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) Even if they are not regarded as plant & machinery, they can
be regarded as supporting structures and foundation on
which locomotives and torpedo ladle shall ply and they shall
be regarded as accessories. It is submitted that locomotives
and torpedo ladles are owned by the Appellant and they
qualify as equipment, machinery and without rails, they can-
not be effectively used or operated.
(ad) Explaining the term “plant”, the Supreme Court in Scientific Engi-
neering 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.”
(ae) 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 :-
“26. The word “plant”, though an ordinary English word, is not
altogether an easy word to construe. It may have a more or less ex-
tensive meaning according to its context. It has come up for inter-
pretation before various courts on numerous occasions in the con-
text of different statutes and the catena of judicial decisions shows
that it is a word of wide and varied import susceptible of diverse
meanings depending upon its setting in the scheme of the statute.
Almost all cases bearing upon the interpretation of the word
“plant” decided in England and in this country were cited before us
and the following enumeration would show as to what an amazing
variety of articles, objects or things have been held to be plant or not
plant :
PLANT
(i) Horse, Yarmouth v. France; (ii) knives and lasts used in
manufacture of shoes, Hinton v. Maden & Ireland Ltd.; (iii) air-
craft engine which was being dismantled, Watts v. Enfield Roll-
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  191