SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ
INDO AMERICAN SUPERSPECALITIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ST) – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 18418/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S Suri Babu
For the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The determination of whether a building used for renting constitutes 'plant and machinery' under Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act is a factual inquiry requiring the application of a 'functionality test' to assess the building's role in the business.

Headnote:(A) GST - Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Construction of Immovable Property - Denial of ITC under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST/APGST Act for construction of a multiplex meant for renting is subject to whether the building can be classified as 'plant and machinery'. (Para 1, 2)

(B) Interpretation of 'Plant' - Functionality Test - The determination of whether a building (such as a mall or warehouse) constitutes a 'plant' within the meaning of Section 17(5)(d) is a factual question to be decided by applying a 'functionality test' based on the business of the registered person and the role the building plays in that business. (Para 3)

Issues: Whether the construction of a multiplex for renting can be treated as 'plant and machinery' to allow Input Tax Credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST/APGST Act.

Table of Content
1. denial of itc for construction of immovable property and the claim that a multiplex is 'plant and machinery'. (Para 1 , 2)
2. application of the 'functionality test' as established by the supreme court to determine if a building is a 'plant'. (Para 3)
3. remanding the matter to the assessing authority to apply the functionality test. (Para 4 , 5)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 / APGST Act, 2017 , in denying Input Tax Credit to the construction of immovable property which is meant for letting out or leasing our of the immovable property, as arbitrary, unjust, oppressive and is directly opposed to basic rationale of the Goods and Services Tax itself, reading down for the purpose of interpretation in continuation to give benefit to the taxable person who has paid GST and allow the claim of Input Tax Credit in respect of lease / renting out the immovable property by setting the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC - 07, in Case Id No. AD371221003638C, dated 05.06.2023, for the tax period July, 2017, to March, 2022, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased pending disposal of the Writ Petition, grant stay collection all further proceedings arising in pursuance of the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC - 07, in Case Id No. AD371221003638C, dated 05.06.2023, for the tax period July, 2017, to March, 2022 or to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem flt and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S SURI BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

1. The petitioner here in, which is a registered person, had constructed a multiplex for renting out to various customers. The petitioner, sought input tax credit in relation to the taxes paid on the goods and services received in the construction of multiplex, for the year 2017-18 to 2021-2021. The assessing authority by an order dated 05.06.2023, completed the assessment for this period. In the course of such assessment, the assessing authority had held that section 17 (5) (d) of the A.P GST Act barred ITC being given in relation to inputs which go into construction of immovable property.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order had approached this Court with the contention that section 17(5) (d), while barring ITC being given on goods or services received during construction on immovable property, permitted such ITC in relation to plant and machinery. It is the case of the petitioner that the said multiplex should be treated as a plant and machinery.

3. Sri.S.Suribabu, learned counsel for the petitioner who relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Chief Commissioner of central goods and service tax & Ors Vs. Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & ors” dated 03.10.2024 in the Civil Appeal.No.2948 of 2023, 2025 (2) SCC 523. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the said Civil Appeal had held as follows :

“The question whether a mall, warehouse or any building other than a hotel or cinema theatre can be classified as a plant within the meaning of the expression “plant or machinery” used in Section 17(5)(d) is a factual question which has to be determined keeping in mind the business of the registered person and the role that building plays in the said business. If the construction of a buildi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top