9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying upon various dictionaries. Though there are some references to the functions, it is not as if the matter has been examined by focusing on the functionality test. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in its judgment and order dated 3 October 2024 [ 2024 (10) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT ], has held that in each such case, a fact-finding enquiry is contemplated. Such an enquiry is necessary, inter alia, because such matters will have to be decided by recourse to the functionality test. Possibly, when the Advance Ruling Authorities decided the matter, the Petitioner had yet to establish the requisite infrastructure - Respondents, is also justified in contending that the scope of judicial review in such matters is relatively minimal and, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for calling for the records of the present case and after going through the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra (Exhibit G hereto); (d) this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents to refrain from taking any steps pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 07.10.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner liberty to submit additional material to consider the matter from the perspective of the functionality test. 7. Mr Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submits that the impugned provision is already held intra vires. He submits that the Advance Ruling Authorities have considered the matter threadbare and concluded the Petitioner s pipeline does not qualify as plant or machinery. He, therefore, submits that the finding of fact recorded by the two authorities warrants no interference. He submitted that the scope of judicial review, particularly against findings of fact, is minimal. Accordingly, he submits that no relief may be granted to the Petitioner in this case. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 2948 of 2023. Therefore, it appears that the explanation to Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act was presumed to apply to sub-Clauses (c) and (d) and not just sub-Clause (c) as is now held by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 12. Secondly, we also find that the authorities under the Advance Ruling have primarily analysed the matter from the perspective of definitions of plant and machinery by relying upon various dictionaries. Though there are some references to the functions, it is not as if the matter has been examined by focusing on the functionality test. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in its judgment and order dated 3 October 2024, has held that in each such case, a fact-finding enquiry is contemplated. Such an enquiry is necessary, inter alia, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
