9911796707
TMI BlogSEC 17(5)(h)X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The fire took place in my client factory. there is loss of some raw material . We filed the claim with the insurance company. The Insurance company admitted the amount of loss excluding the GST and we retain the goods at salvage value. As we did not recover the GST amount from the insurance company hence we did not reverse the ITC claimed (as required under section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act .) Is there any disobeyment of Section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act ??? - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear Sir Admittedly ITC on goods destroyed is blocked under Section 17[5][h] . Your understanding is correct, there is failure of reversal of ITC. Your client needs to reverse such ITC with applicable amount of interest - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh. Agrawal Ji, What was the reason of fire ? - Reply By Shilpi Jain - The Reply = You have mentioned that you have retained the goods at salvage value. Does this mean that you would be selling it atleast at scrap value? If yes then these raw materials which are not destroyed but maybe damaged would not be covered under s 17(5) restriction. You should be eligible for the credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = (i) Here the querist has used the word, 'salvage value' . In this scenario, it is inappropriate to use the word, 'salvage value'. It is not legally correct. It is a square peg in the round hole. The querist should have used the proper word and that is , 'Salvage Loss'. What he has recovered that is 'salvage charges'. (ii) Further, a fire rarely totally destroys the insured property. In terms of Fire Insurance Policy, it is treated/termed as ''Total Loss'' (iii) Hence, in this scenario, ITC is clearly hit by Section 17(5) (h) of CGST Act . No benefit of the residue remaining after the fire is admissible. (iv) Thus I support the views of Sh.Sadanand Bulbule, Sir. - Reply By Shilpi Jain - The Reply = To the extent raw material is destroyed in fire, ITC needs to be reversed. In your query you have mentioned that SOME raw material is lost in fire. Non-recovery of GST from insurance company would have no relevance whether you need to reverse ITC or not. - Reply By SUSHIL BANSAL - The Reply = In my opinion , the case is not covered 17 (5)(h) as insurance claim should be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable supply - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear Bansal ji Plz revisit the query and elaborate the reasons for your opinion. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh.Sushil Bansal Ji, I welcome difference of opinion. Will you please enlighten me 'HOW' not hit by Section 17(5)(h) ? My further opinion is as under:- Not to speak of Section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act , such availment of ITC (if not reversed), does not conform to the condition of ''used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business as per Section 16(1 ) of CGST Act , raw material being destroyed. 'Residue' does not help at all. The querist has used the word, 'salvage value'. It means depreciated value. No question of depreciation here. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Can the residue remaining after fire cover the whole raw material ? - Reply By KANHAIYA AGRAWAL - The Reply = Thanks to all, my humble submittion are as follows. 1. (Sh Kasturi Sethi ji) : Can the residue remaining after fire cover the whole raw material ? Sir, Yes this cover the whole raw material. Due to fire the quality of raw m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial became low; hence the company sold out this material as scrap (after charging the GST on sale of scrap). 2. (Sh Adanand Bulbule Ji) : Your client needs to reverse such ITC with applicable amount of interest. Sir, But my client did not receive the claim amount inclusive of GST from the insurance company. They receive only cost of material from the insurance company. Client is saying the one side we did not received the GST amount from the insurance company and again if we reverse the ITC (which already taken) there will be double loss to the company. Also share is it possible to recover the GST amount from insurance company on the ground of reverse the ITC now? 3. (Sh Kasturi Sethi ji) : What was the reason of fire ? Sir, It was electric short circuit. 4. (Shilipi Jain Ji) : Does this mean that you would be selling it at least at scrap value? If yes then these raw materials which are not destroyed but maybe damaged would not be covered under s 17(5) restriction. Mam, Can you please elaborate this statement considering difference between destroy and damage. 5.(Sh Kasturi Sethi ji) : Here the querist has used the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word, 'salvage value' . In this scenario, it is inappropriate to use the word, 'salvage value'. Sir, I agree with you, but I copy this word from insurance company as they use this word commonly for the things which are saleable at scrap price. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh.Kanhaiya Agrawal Ji, Pl ponder over serial no.8 above though not addressed to you. I solicit your comments, it being relevant. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear querist According to my considered understanding, insurance company settles the claims of the damage or destruction of the property/assets /goods insured but not ITC, being an indirect tax. As such the party suffering the loss would not get back ITC from the insurance company. On what ground your client is expecting such reimbursement of ITC? Whether he gets it or not, he needs to reverse it. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = There was provision for remission of Central Excise duty in erstwhile Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules , if duty was NOT claimed from the Insurance Company but in GST Act/Rules there is no such provision for remission of GST. Hence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n GST regime, insurance and remission of GST cannot be claimed simultaneously. Insurance and remission of duty both were possible in Central Excise era but not now. There are case laws to this effect which pertain to remission of Central Excise duty. At present GST laws do not help the assessee (the victim of fire). SUGGESTION However, Trade and Industry Association should represent to the GST Council to either allow retention of ITC or remit the GST involved by way of making a change in the language of Section 17(5) (h) so that a person who is already victim of fire accident or natural catastrophe should not suffer more. Such change will be in public interest. - Reply By SUSHIL BANSAL - The Reply = In the present case itc can be taken as the basic condition of itc that of used or intended to be used is to be seen at the time of availing the itc and at the time of availing itc the condition is fulfilled Further reversal of itc under section 17(5)(h) is not required as goods has salvage value. Further the insurance claim will not be taxable supply being the insurance claim is in the nature of actionable claim. - Reply By Padmanathan Kollengode - The Reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... = To the extend of goods destroyed in fire, ITC has to be reversed under section 17(5)(h) . The fact that insurance company is not giving the GST amount has to be looked into, on basis of the insurance contract. It does not have any impact on section 17(5)(h) . In my opinion, retaining ITC on goods damaged in fire and later, sold as scrap may be litigious . If destroyed is seen in light of lost or written off , it signifies where the goods have zero value or very negligible value. Whereas, damage signifies a reduction in the marketable value, it is not per say destroyed. However, these aspect has to be looked into based on the type of goods that are being used as raw material, how they are sold etc. Considering these facts, you must take a call based on amount involved, risk appetite of client, etc... As far as argument with respect to 16(1) not being satisfied concerned, the words used in section 16(1) is used or intended to be used and in the course or futharence of business . This has a wider connotation in my opinion and even goods which are intended to be used for manufacture shall be eligible for credit. Once after 16(1) has been satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , only then it can be hit by section 17(5)(h) and therefore, in my opinion, the Department cannot go back to 16(1) and say, the goods were not used in business. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear all, The TMI D-platform is open to offer opinions the way the visitors wish and such opinions do not carry any legal sanctity. But the learners expect the opinions to be nearer to the object of law. I leave it to the consciousness of all to double check before posting them since many innocent learners believe such opinions as sacrosanct. And I am one of the earnest learners. Hope my appeal is taken in the right perspective. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Both the expressions i.e. used or intended to be used and in the course or furtherance of business could not be materialized into actuality/practical shape. Both these became defunct due to fire accident. Without actual usage of inputs, the assessee fails to qualify both parameters laid down in Section 16(1) . - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh.Sadanand Bulbule Ji, Sir, There is substance in your suggestion. The solution to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roblem is that every reply should be examined/approved by the Chief Editor or TMI Management Team before display in the Discussion Forum. - Reply By Padmanathan Kollengode - The Reply = Dear Sadanand Ji and Kasturi Ji, I do not share the same thoughts on this for various reasons:- 1. which opinion is nearer to the object of law is purely subjective and can vary from person to person, officer to officer, even judge to judge. 2. I don't believe any querist or reader is naive enough to take decisions only on basis of replies in TMI or belive it to be so sacrosanct. Most of the queries do not even reveal the full facts and often replies are based on the perception of person replying, which again varies. 3. Multiple views on the subject gives variety of perspective to the querist, as to how department will make its case and also as to how to counter it. 4. lastly, I do not believe in any form of censorship in academic forums. many a times in TMI, i have given views on particular issue and on convincing counter arguments by experts, i have corrected myself as well. I belive that TMI is learning arena for those answering queries as well, if they are open to admittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that they can go wrong too. that being said, if the previous posts were intended to me, I would be most happy to divert my time and energy to some other avenues other than TMI forum. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = I agree with legal reasoning given by Shri PadmanathanJi in his post at serial No. 15 above. In my view, requirements of taking ITC under Section 16(1) remains duly fulfilled as those goods were intended to be used in the course or furtherance of the business . I also hold a view that ITC against goods which are sufficiently damaged in fire to the extend that there is nothing left of those goods except to be sold as 'scrap ', is hit by Section 17(5)(h) . This is due to non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 17(5) (i.e. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18 ). @ Shri PadmanathanJi, I also agree with for your post at serial No. 19, except last line. For last line used by you, I would suggest not to get offended by others so easily. People who has sufficient knowledge of GST law/s and have legal maturity to deal with complex issues contrary view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s can always understand where quality lies , even when they disagree with someone on a particular legal issue. But, real experts, in my humble view, are those who always have an ability to explain their disagreement with a particular view OR for taking a particular view by giving very sound solid reasoning legal explanation, instead with using hyperbole, putting non-relevant arguments or putting series of case-laws in their posts/s which deal with neither issue raised by the querist nor the particular legal point under debate / discussion etc. And anyway, if somebody disagree with a particular view of yours without giving sound reasoning legal explanation, you always got a choice to ignore those views. These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = Dear Querist, General insurance contract, generally specking subject to specific terms of such contract , is nothing but assurance to indemnify against losses incurred (subject to defined outer limit) upon happening of pre-defined contingencies such a fire. As someone who have extensively advised a gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral insurance Co. for fairly long period - both during service tax regime gst, suffice to say that I have basic knowledge of how this industry works, including general method/s of calculating losses to be compensated etc. And, I am yet to find a policy where insurance Co. has specifically excluded compensation against loss of GST u/s 17(5)(h) in its policy terms conditions. You should raise supplementary claim with your general insurance Co., by pointing out that they have wrongly calculated losses incurred by you on account of fire by excluding GST portion. You need to point them that due to Section 17(5)(h) , you are under legal obligation / compulsion to reverse ITC claimed earlier provide proof of reversal so made. Hence, calculations of losses incurred must consider not only basic purchase price but also GST paid at the time of purchase. With proper follow-up, I hope you get additional compensation against loss of GST from your general insurance Co. And if required, you should show them your willingness to take a legal route (and actually take it, if so needed) so to force them in fulfilling their obligations under the contract. These are ex facie views o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani - The Reply = When ITC is not taken at the time of purchase it becomes part of the cost of material. Then that cost becomes the value for lodging claim with insurance company. One cannot add ITC to arrive at claim value only because it has to be reversed. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh.Ganeshan Kalyani Ji, (i) You have felt the pulse. (ii) The Insurance Companies never compensate for the tax component..Reason is given by you. (iii) Reason is that GST is indirect tax and tax comes from the pocket of the buyer/consumer. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = As explained earlier, General insurance contract, generally specking subject to specific terms of such contract , is nothing but assurance to indemnify against losses incurred (subject to defined outer limit) upon happening of pre-defined contingencies such a fire . And calculation of such loss incurred definitely include purchase price as well as GST (in view of Section 2(17)(h) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). If someone does not insist for such GST loss to be compensated (due to ignorance of legal rights of the insured or due to mis-application of concepts ( which got nothing to do with general insurance contract ) such as GST being indirect taxes to be borne by consumer or once ITC is taken, it cannot be compensated despite its reversal u/s 17(5)(h) so on ), general insurance Co. are happy to pay lesser compensation. I have seen so-many cases where general insurance Co. compensates for such loss towards GST, specially when 'insured / client' knows his legal rights well. What is required is the 'insured / client' stand up for his legal right and ensure that his general insurance Co. fulfils its legal obligation to compensate full loss incurred due to fire, which includes loss of GST against raw material destroyed by fire u/s 17(5)(h) . These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By Padmanathan Kollengode - The Reply = Recently, there was a fire mishap in one of my client's unit. When I enquired with them now, they have got the claim towards the GST on Raw Material dest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... royed approved it seems. Once I get the necessary documents, I can share it across. - Reply By Amresh kumar - The Reply = In my opinion whatever little knowledge I have the ITC shall not be reversed as the ITC part is not claimed from insurance. Further since the GST has already been paid to the exchequer on purchase of raw material. Further remission of duty in the erstwhile excise regime was on final manufactured goods. Even in my own case an E.O.U unit suffered a loss in floods. The CRA took objection for ITC part and same reply has been submitted. Of course there is no intimation of the objection being settled or Para closed but neither SCN has been issued. The reply was submitted to CRA more than a year back. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear all, Please refer the following AAR on reversal of ITC in the case of destruction of goods in the fire mishap: 2023 (9) TMI 852 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA - IN RE: M/S. GEEKAY WIRES LIMITED, - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh.Sadanand Bulbule Ji, Sir, Thanks a lot for posting the above decision. You have not only enriched my knowledge on the issue but also saved the precious t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of the visitors of TMI website. Also rescued them from the rigours of litigation. Facts and circumstances of each and every case are not always same. Knowledge itself means factually aware of something. - Reply By Amresh kumar - The Reply = Sadanand Bulbule Sir and Sethi Sir, The AAR judgment cannot be set as a precedence as it is applicable only to the concerned assessee. More over it is obvious that majority of AAR judgments are biased and not judicious . My point is when an input has been purchased the GST amount has already been paid to the Govt. If insurance is claimed for the GST part then it has to be reversed as it will amount to double benefit. I have contested on this point only to CRA objection to one of E.O.U. and no SCN has been issued till date . Even if it is issued we are going to contest this to its logical end. It is felt that a proviso has to be inserted after Sec 17 (5) Will keep TMI updated on this matter . - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear Kumar Sir Having spent 4 and half decades in this field, I am well aware of your rightful expressions. Law always takes its own course. With due respect to all subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... experts, I wish to remind here that, this is only a discussion forum and not a debating forum per say. There are most and more experts,without coming on the front position, are silently observing every query and casket of diverse replies. Every reply has its own powerful impact and it need not be an instant solution. Hope visitors to TMI would happily appreciate it with positive vibes to move forward. Journey is as lively as the destination. Regards. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = With regards to AAR ruling quoted in Post No. 27 above (i.e. 2023 (9) TMI 852 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA IN RE: M/S. GEEKAY WIRES LIMITED ), my views are as under: A. Subject matter under discussion here ( Issue Id: - 118820 ) is fire damaging raw material whereas said AAR ruling deals with fire damaging Finished Goods . B. Said AAA grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that ITC needs to be reversed by misapplying Section 17(2), 17(5)(h) 18(4) to the given situation before them. B2. Section 17(2) is not applicable as there is no goods involved in effecting exempt supplies. Section 17(5)(h) is not applicable because the raw material - on which IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C was taken by the tax-payer - was not destroyed by fire. Section 18(4) is not applicable because tax-payer's output supply does not get wholly exempted nor tax-payer opts for composition scheme u/s 10 because of the event of fire destroying his finished goods. B3. If anything, from reading of said ruling, I became much more confident about my views that no reversal of ITC is required in given situation before AAR. This is because I find that Department does NOT have any strong legal grounds to deny ITC against raw material just because fire destroyed finished goods manufactured using such raw material . B4. I also find that there is no legal provision ( i.e. similar to Section 18(4) ) incorporated in Section 17(5) or in any rules which can demand reversal of ITC against inputs which are contained in semi-finished or finished goods when such semi-finished or finished goods gets destroyed by fire. B5. Such ruling just shows why one should never take Dept's officer's views on their face value while interpreting any legal provisions / rules. B6. No wonder why Dept. find itself on losing side - in very major number of cases - when tax-dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes reaches tribunal or above courts. These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = Please read Para A of my last post above as follows: A. Subject matter under discussion here ( Issue Id: - 118820 ) is fire destroying raw material whereas said AAR ruling deals with fire destroying Finished Goods . - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = Sh. Amresh Kumar Ji, Dear Sir, My views are detailed below (i) The AAR judgment cannot be set as a precedence as it is applicable only to the concerned assessee. : It is a matter of common knowledge. (ii) More over it is obvious that majority of AAR judgments are biased and not judicious . : I do not agree. Rather, applicants are biased. Every person expects decision in his/her favour irrespective of the merits. Such bent of mind can be found in other fora also i.e. Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals),Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal, Courts . Not to speak of above, even in this Discussion Forum every querist expects opinion in his/her favour which is not possible. (iii) My point is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen an input has been purchased the GST amount has already been paid to the Govt. Tax paid character on raw material is not in dispute. The dispute is about the usage. ITC earned has not been used in the course of business or furtherance of business. Mere, 'intended to be used' is not only requirement. Must be translated into reality. The conjunction 'OR' integrates all these words/phrases :- used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business Cannot be isolated. (iv) If insurance is claimed for the GST part then it has to be reversed as it will amount to double benefit. : There is no room for 'if' and 'but' in the realm of law. (v) I have contested on this point only to CERA objection to one of E.O.Us. and no SCN has been issued till date . Even if it is issued, we are going to contest this to its logical end. Very eager to see the results. (vi) It is felt that a proviso has to be inserted after Sec 17 (5) No comments. We are talking about what has actually happened. (vii) Will keep TMI updated on this matter .; If you keep track and update, I shall be highly thankful to you. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t will be in public interest also. Thanks warmest regards. Disclaimer : These are my personal views and not meant for making these basis in any judicial/semi-judicial proceedings - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = In my humble view, the words intended to be used cannot mean used while interpreting Section 16(1) . Otherwise, there is no need to use the words intended to be used there. Lets look this issue from other angle: If the words intended to be used u/s 16(1) means actual usage eventually i.e. sometime down the line from day of receipt of goods then , there was no need of using the words lost, stolen, destroyed to deny ITC against those goods u/s 17(5)(h) and Section 16(1) would have taken care of such situation itself to deny ITC against goods lost, stolen, destroyed . All this again proves that the words intended to be used u/s 16(1) cannot mean actual usage eventually , in my view. Thus, Section 16(1) cannot be used to deny ITC against raw material material destroyed by fire , IMHO. Only due to Section 17(5)(h) , such ITC can be denied. And, there is no legal provision / rules to demand reversal of ITC agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inputs which are contained in semi-finished or finished goods when such semi-finished or finished goods gets destroyed by fire . Here , these inputs (i.e raw material) are actually used in the manufacturing activity and they did not just remain intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business of the tax-payer ( thereby, fulfilling requirements of Section 16(1) on both counts i.e. 'used' as well as 'intended to be used' ). But here , Section 17(5)(h) is not applicable because the raw material - on which ITC was taken by the tax-payer - was not destroyed by fire. These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By KASTURI SETHI - The Reply = W.r.t. my replies at seral nos. 8, 17 33, I further clarify that here the word, 'OR' means 'AND' as per legal dictionary based on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = Now, lets deal with the arguments that the word 'or' should be read as 'and' while interpreting Section 16(1) and IF SO, said Section 16(1) will be as follows: Every r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49 , be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used AND intended to be used i n the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person. In other words, if one takes above argument on its face value, it means that for taking ITC as per Section 16(1), inward goods / services should satisfy DUAL condition i.e. Such inward goods / services should ONLY ONLY be used BUT ALSO intended to be used . In continuation of my last post where I explained reasons behind usage of the words the words lost, stolen, destroyed to deny ITC against those goods u/s 17(5)(h) how Section 16(1) should be seen in this context which are yet to be refuted by anyone , I find above line of argument (i.e. reading of 'or' as 'and') is again untenable because what is 'used' is always with the intention to use . In other words, no-one 'uses' goods / services for his business without any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention to use them . And if so, there was no need to use the words 'intended to be used' as an additional requirement to avail ITC u/s 16(1) . But, as Section 16(1) has the word 'or', it must be given its natural meaning . With regards to above line of argument (i.e. reading of the word 'or' as 'and'), The Hon ble Supreme Court's observations in COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA VERSUS M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. ORS. AND UNION OF INDIA ORS. VERSUS M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. - 2023 (10) TMI 748 - SUPREME COURT are worth noting and same are as follows : 22. Having noticed some of the precedents in the field of interpretation of statutes, we now move on to a little bit of English grammar. The word or as well as the word and is a conjunction; and it is well known that a conjunction is used to join words, phrases, or clauses. On how the conjunctions or and and are to be read, guidance could be drawn from authoritative texts and judicial decisions. As per Justice GP Singh s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, the word or is normally disjunctive while t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he word and is normally conjunctive . In English law, the position is clear as crystal, as explained by Lord Scrutton in Green vs. Premier Glynrhonwy Slate Co. (1928) 1 K.B. 561, page 569 , that one does not read or as and in a statute unless one is obliged, because or does not generally mean and and and does not generally mean or . 23. When the meaning of the provision in question is clear and unambiguous by the usage of or in clause 2(s), there remains no force in the submission of Ms. Bagchi that or should be interpreted as and . In our opinion, the word or employed in clause 2(s) manifests the legislative intent of prescribing an alternative. Going by the golden rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning, the word or in clause 2(s) clearly appears to us to have been used to reflect the ordinary and normal sense, that is to denote an alternative, giving a choice; and, we cannot assign it a different meaning unless it leads to vagueness or makes clause 2(s) absolutely unworkable . We are fortified in our view by the decision of this Court in SRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST ORS. VERSUS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.G. SYED MOHIDEEN ORS. - 2010 (1) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held thus: .......................... Again, Supreme Court's following observations in case of UOI AND ORS. VERSUS IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. - 2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT are worth noting: 19. A taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed . It is not permissible to import provisions in a taxing statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency . In support of the same we may refer to the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP. VERSUS MODI SUGAR MILLS LTD. - 1960 (10) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT wherein this Court at Para 10 has observed as follows:- 10......... In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. T he court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed : it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statutes so as to supply any assumed deficiency. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the attempt of the High Court to read down the provision by way of substituting the word OR by an and so as to give relief to the assessee is found to be erroneous . In that regard the submission of the counsel for the appellant is well-founded that once the said credit is taken the beneficiary is at liberty to utilize the same, immediately thereafter, subject to the Credit rules. As said before, from my last post, my reasoning behind usage of the words the words lost, stolen, destroyed to deny ITC against those goods u/s 17(5)(h) and how Section 16(1) should be seen in this context is yet to be refuted by anyone . Similarly, non-availability of similar argument itself (i.e. about interpretation of Section 16(1) even if it is said that the word 'or' should be read as 'and' ) to demand reversal of ITC against inputs which are contained in semi-finished or finished goods when such semi-finished or finished goods gets destroyed by fire is not yet refuted by anyone . Here , these inputs (i.e raw material) are actually used in the manufacturing activity and they did not just remain intended to be used in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or furtherance of business of the tax-payer ( thereby, fulfilling requirements of Section 16(1) on both counts i.e. 'used' as well as 'intended to be used' ). These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear all I repeat here that, this forum is not to harm feelings of any one, irrespective of his/her opinion is acceptable or otherwise. Opinion,however strong, is not more than an opinion, much less judgement. The narrow perceptive of facts confuses man's reason, judgement and makes himself appear taller then others. But it is not reality, only an illusion. The truth in adage Thoughts are things should be duly respected! End of the day, when jewellery is liquified in the right conditions, what remains in the melted state is gold only. It comes back to its original and right form. So is this forum to melt outdated jewellery to get back pure gold, again to convert it into new brilliant jewellery, which carries more value than the molten gold. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = 'Giving own interpretation of law with solid reasoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as disagreeing with a contrary view/s by giving detailed justification reasoning for disagreement' can NOT be seen as hurting feelings of anyone. Otherwise, it will be impossible to meaningfully contribute on such public discussion forum. All querists on TMI forum and its visitors needs comprehensive view of various facets of any controversy under discussion and legal justification / reasons for both sides of any argument wherever there is disagreement among contributors. While all these views are, no doubt, opinions not judgements, all querists on TMI forum and its visitors have a right or expectation to see quality discussion . And that quality cannot come unless disagreement/s and legal reasoning for disagreement is openly minutely discussed. Hence, I stand with everything I said in all my posts earlier. And wherever time permits, I intent to continue making meaningful contributions on this discussion forum. And, to everyone feeling offended, I would give same suggestion as was given by me to Shri Padmanathan Ji in my post at serial No. 20 above. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear all Reflected consciousness is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true Self or real light, but shadow of light . __ says The Bhagavad Gita. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = I agree with Shri Sadanand Bulbule Ji for his last post above. And I am also sure I have not got reflected consciousness. I guess each one should decide this for themselves......no human has power to decide the state of other person's consciousness. - Reply By Sadanand Bulbule - The Reply = Dear Amit sirji I appreciate your quick and kind gesture. This principle applies to all human beings as we are not and cannot be perfect. At the same time, please do not tag yourself in this context. We are here to correct ourselves by mutual participation. More than the querists, the experts are becoming more expert on every occasion. No one can sit on the golden throne and dictate the terms in democratic society. End of the day, we are all students till our end. Keep on commenting as usual. TMI is getting enriched by the cylo of skilled and matured thoughts. Happy Diwali greetings in advance. - Reply By Amit Agrawal - The Reply = @ Shri Sadanand Bulbule Ji, You are welcome! Please note that I NEVER got any reason whatsoever to tag myself with context of your post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at serial No. 39 above, because I got clear the true Self consciousness. And my all earlier post/s above are result of that true Self consciousness. I wish you, All other professional colleagues, All Querists and all visitors to TMI website a very happy Diwali and prosperous new year ahead! - SEC 17(5)(h) - Query Started By: - KANHAIYA AGRAWAL Dated:- 21-10-2023 Last Replied Date:- 9-11-2023 Goods and Services Tax - GST - Got 42 Replies - GST - Discussion Forum - Knowledge Sharing, reply post by an expert, personal opinion Tax Management India - taxmanagementindia - taxmanagement - taxmanagementindia.com - TMI - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
