2025 (2) TMI 723 - AAR - GST

Input tax credit - Whether input tax credit is available in relation to goods and services received for increasing the height of Tailing Dam used to disposal and treatment of hazardous waste of mining operations known as tailings in terms of Section 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017? - HELD THAT - Ongoing through the submissions of the taxpayer it is found that Tailing dams are constructed solely using the by-products generated during the second phase of conversion of ore into concentrates at the milling plant. During the second phase of conversion of ore into concentrates at milling plant hazardous waste known as tailings a form of slurry is generated at the tail end of the benefication process. These tailings in the form of slurry consist of crushed rock water and chemicals left over after the extraction of minerals. The provisions of section 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d) of CGST Act 2017 clarifies that GST paid on works contract goods and services received by a taxpayer for construction of immovable property is not eligible for ITC. There are two exceptions in clause (d) to the exclusion from ITC provided in the first part of Clause (d). The first exception is where goods or services or both are received by a taxable person to construct an immovable property consisting of a plant or machinery . The second exception is where goods and services or both are received by a taxable person for the construction of an immovable property made not on his own account. Construction is said to be on a taxable person s own account when (i) it is made for his personal use and not for service or (ii) it is to be used by the person constructing as a setting in which business is carried out. However construction cannot said to be on a taxable person s own account if it is intended to be sold or given on lease or license. When the immovable property is in the nature of plant and machinery then the works contract goods and services received for construction of plant and machinery will be eligible for ITC and will not be hit by the restriction under the said clause (c) or (d) of Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act 2017. Since tailing dams are resting on foundation of natural rock or soil with the help of cement and is stretch over several kilometers it is clear that they are immovable and are thus covered under definition of immovable property . We find that the term civil structure has also not been defined in the GST law. A general understanding of the term can be derived from the definition of civil engineering given as The profession of designing and executing structural works that serve the general public such as dams bridges aqueducts canals highways power plants sewerage systems and other infrastructure - the tailing dam is a civil structure and qualifies in the definition of immovable property. Therefore the submission of the applicant that it is covered under Plant and Machinery is not tenable. The tailing dams can be simply termed as a structure providing storage facility for waste products of mining operations. These storage facilities does not play any role in the quantity as well as quality of the minerals extracted processed and metals manufactured by the taxpayer. Thus the tailing dams can not be qualified to be used for carrying on the core business activities. Conclusion - Input tax credit is not available in relation to goods and services received for increasing the height of Tailing Dam used to disposal and treatment of hazardous waste of mining operations known as tailings in terms of Section 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.

Summary

The core legal question considered in this matter is whether input tax credit (ITC) is available on goods and services received for increasing the height of a tailing dam used for disposal and treatment of hazardous mining waste (tailings), in light of the restrictions under Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The dispute centers on whether the tailing dam qualifies as "plant and machinery" or is to be treated as "immovable property" (civil structure), which would determine the availability or blockage of ITC.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Interpretation of Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act regarding ITC blockage:

The legal framework under Section 17(5) blocks ITC on goods or services used for construction of immovable property other than plant and machinery. Clause (c) restricts credit on works contract services for construction of immovable property (other than plant and machinery), and clause (d) restricts credit on goods or services received for construction of immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on own account, including when used in the course or furtherance of business.

The applicant contended that the tailing dam is an integral part of the milling plant and thus qualifies as "plant and machinery" under the CGST Act, which is defined to include "apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for making outward supply of goods or services or both." The applicant argued that the tailing dam is a complex apparatus incorporating automated pipelines, drainage systems, and geomembranes/clay liners, all functioning collectively for processing tailings and environmental protection, and is therefore not merely a civil structure or immovable property.

The jurisdictional officer, however, contended that the tailing dam is a civil structure and immovable property, constructed on natural soil or rock foundations, and that the pipelines and drainage systems are common to civil structures and do not convert the dam into plant or machinery. The officer emphasized that cement and concrete are used in the dam's construction, which is characteristic of immovable property, and that the dam does not constitute an apparatus or plant used in the business but is a mandated environmental compliance structure. Therefore, ITC is blocked under the relevant provisions.

2. Definition and functional test of "plant and machinery" versus immovable property:

The applicant relied on dictionary meanings and judicial precedents to define "apparatus" as a complex system of equipment designed for a specific function, applying a functional test to argue that the tailing dam qualifies as plant and machinery. The applicant cited judgments where functional utility rather than mere structural form determined classification, including the Supreme Court's endorsement of the functional test in relation to specialized ponds used in aquaculture.

The applicant further argued that the tailing dam is indispensable to the mining and milling process operationally and legally, as tailings must be safely disposed of to continue mining operations. The dam's functions include processing tailings, environmental protection, and compliance with mining laws such as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017. The applicant also referred to pre-GST rulings where credit was allowed on similar grounds.

The jurisdictional officer distinguished these precedents, emphasizing that the tailing dam is a civil structure and immovable property, not a plant or machinery. The officer noted that the functional test is not applicable to immovable property and furtherance of business issues. The officer also highlighted the recent amendment to Section 17(5) blocking ITC on goods or services used for corporate social responsibility activities, implying that environmental compliance structures like tailing dams may fall outside ITC eligibility. The officer stressed that the dam does not form part of the manufacturing process but is a compliance requirement and a place where business is carried out, not a means of production.

3. Nature and construction of the tailing dam:

The applicant submitted that the tailing dam is constructed mainly by earthworks using waste materials from mining, such as rocks, mud, sand, HDPE sheets, and liners, with minimal or no use of cement or traditional civil construction materials. The dam is a dynamic system with integrated pipelines and drainage designed for processing tailings and environmental management, not a static civil structure. The applicant argued that the predominant activity is earthwork, which is not defined as construction of immovable property under GST law.

The jurisdictional officer countered that the tailing dam is constructed on natural soil or rock foundations and involves cement and RCC (reinforced cement concrete) structures such as garland drains, which constitute civil structures and immovable property. The officer noted that even if earthworks predominate, the addition of earth and other materials to raise the dam's height falls within the definition of immovable property, blocking ITC. The officer also pointed out the lack of technical evidence from the applicant to substantiate the claim of absence of cement or civil construction materials.

4. Legal and regulatory context of tailing dam construction and its role in mining operations:

The applicant emphasized that construction and maintenance of tailing dams are legally mandated under mining laws and environmental regulations, making the dam an integral part of the mining process. The dam enables continued extraction and processing of minerals by safely managing hazardous waste. The applicant argued that this operational necessity and legal mandate distinguish the dam from mere environmental compliance structures and support ITC eligibility.

The jurisdictional officer acknowledged the legal mandate but maintained that compliance obligations do not override the clear statutory provisions of the CGST Act. The officer observed that mining laws impose environmental protection duties but do not convert such structures into plant or machinery for GST purposes. The officer also highlighted that CSR-related activities, which may include environmental protection, are specifically excluded from ITC under Section 17(5)(fa).

5. Relevant judicial precedents and authoritative rulings:

The applicant cited several judicial decisions supporting the functional test and classification of certain immovable properties as plant or machinery based on their use in business operations, including the Supreme Court's recent rulings. The applicant also referred to pre-GST tribunal rulings allowing credit for services related to tailing dams.

The jurisdictional officer distinguished these precedents, noting differences in factual matrix, statutory context, and the evolution of GST law with explicit ITC blocking provisions. The officer emphasized that the GST regime's specific provisions on immovable property and ITC blockage must prevail over earlier interpretations.

6. Application of law to facts and final conclusion:

The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) examined the facts, submissions, and legal provisions. It observed that the tailing dam is constructed on foundations of natural soil or rock, extended over several kilometers, and involves use of cement and RCC structures, qualifying it as immovable property and a civil structure. The AAR noted that the materials used do not affect the classification, as civil structures can be built with various materials.

Further, the AAR found that the tailing dam serves as a storage facility for waste products but does not play a role in the quantity or quality of minerals extracted or metals manufactured, thus not qualifying as plant or machinery used in the business. The dam is primarily for environmental protection and compliance, which does not amount to furtherance of business for ITC purposes.

The AAR also considered the recent Supreme Court ruling clarifying that "plant or machinery" in Section 17(5)(d) should be interpreted consistently with the defined term "plant and machinery" in Section 17(5)(c), and that ITC is denied on immovable property except when it qualifies as plant and machinery. The AAR noted the GST Council's recommendation to align the language retrospectively.

Accordingly, the AAR concluded that the tailing dam is an immovable property and civil structure, and ITC on goods and services used for its construction or height increase is blocked under Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.

Significant holdings:

"We find that since tailing dams are resting on foundation of natural rock or soil with the help of cement and is stretch over several kilometers, it is clear that they are immovable and are thus covered under definition of "immovable property". ... A civil structure can be built with cement and steel or by means of other materials depending on the purpose of the structure and its feasibility. The materials used for construction of structure does not play a vital role in defining it as a "civil structure" or otherwise."

"The tailing dams can not be qualified to be used for carrying on the core business activities. ... The dam is primarily for environmental protection and compliance, which does not amount to furtherance of business for ITC purposes."

"The intent of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) is to deny ITC when goods or services or both are used for construction of immovable property, other than when the immovable property was in nature or plant and/or machinery."

"The expression 'plant or machinery' used in Section 17(5)(d) cannot be given the same meaning as the expression 'plant and machinery' defined by the explanation of section 17."

"When there is a clear cut and expressed provision in GST law of block credit under section 17, there is no scope for liberal interpretation."

Final determination: Input tax credit is not available on goods and services received for increasing the height of the tailing dam used for disposal and treatment of hazardous mining waste, as the tailing dam qualifies as immovable property (civil structure) and not as plant or machinery under Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. The ITC is therefore blocked.