2020 (12) TMI 794 - AAR - GST

Rectification of mistake - typographical error has indeed occurred in the said para 2.7 and needs correction - HELD THAT - This corrigendum order is issued to correct the above mentioned error. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correction of typographical error in the Advance Ruling order regarding the treatment of laying paver blocks as works contract service for construction of immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act.

Analysis:
In the case of M/s. Sundharams Private Limited, an Advance Ruling was passed under Sections 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant pointed out an error in para 2.7 of the ruling where it was erroneously stated that laying paver blocks did not amount to works contract service for construction of immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act. The correction issued clarified that the expression "construction" under section 17(5)(c) includes reconstruction, renovation, addition, alteration, or repairs to the extent of capitalization to the immovable property. It was noted that the expenditure on the paver blocks had been booked as revenue expenditure in the applicant's accounts, therefore not constituting construction of immovable property. Consequently, the input tax credit claimed by the applicant was not affected by the restriction under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act.

This corrigendum order rectified the typographical error in para 2.7 of the Advance Ruling order, ensuring that the correct interpretation of the law regarding the treatment of laying paver blocks as works contract service for construction of immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act was reflected. The correction clarified that the nature of the expenditure on the paver blocks, being booked as revenue expenditure in the applicant's accounts, did not fall within the ambit of "construction" as defined under section 17(5)(c). Therefore, the input tax credit claimed by the applicant was deemed valid and not subject to the restrictions imposed by the aforementioned provision.

Overall, the correction issued in the corrigendum order addressed the discrepancy in the interpretation of the law regarding the treatment of laying paver blocks in the context of works contract service for construction of immovable property under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act. By rectifying the error and providing a clear explanation of the correct application of the law, the Advance Ruling Authority ensured that the applicant's input tax credit claim was appropriately assessed and validated in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.