2020 (3) TMI 893 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of application - Input tax credit (ITC) - Restrictions u/s 17(5) - inputs attributable to the renting of immovable property - construction of immovable property intending for letting out for rent - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention here that the Department has filed an appeal under SLP No.26696/2019 before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, against the order of the Hon ble High Court of Orissa in M/S. SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX OTHERS 2019 (5) TMI 1278 - ORISSA HIGH COURT . Thus the issue is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore the said issue is sub-judice. Therefore the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of CGST Act 2017. The application is hereby rejected as the issue is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and hence is sub-judice.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility to claim input tax credit on inputs attributable to the renting of immovable property.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, engaged in renting immovable property, sought an advance ruling on input tax credit eligibility for related inputs. They argued that denial of ITC for property meant to be let out is arbitrary, violating GST principles and constitutional rights.

2. The applicant referenced CGST Act sections on input tax credit and claimed that restrictions under Section 17(5) don't apply to their case. They relied on a High Court decision to support their stance on ITC entitlement.

3. The Authority considered the applicant's submissions and the legal provisions. Noting the similarity between CGST and KGST Acts, they acknowledged the applicant's business activities and input procurement for immovable property.

4. Despite the applicant's reliance on the Orissa High Court decision, the Authority highlighted that the issue is sub-judice as the Department has appealed to the Supreme Court. Due to the pending status of the matter, the Authority rejected the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017.

5. The ruling concluded that the application is rejected because the issue is under consideration by the Supreme Court, making it sub-judice and not suitable for an advance ruling at the current stage.