Jharkhand High Court
M/S Indus Tower Limited vs Union Of India on 13 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 6367 of 2024
M/s Indus Tower Limited, a company, incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956, registered under Goods and
Services Tax laws vide Goods and Services Tax Identification Number
('GSTIN') 20AADCB0274F1ZE and inter alia having its office at R.S.
Plot No. 995, 996 and 998, 1st Floor, Arpit Tower, Khata No. 163,
Kohra Toli, Kokar Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. No. 196 (Sadar), Ranchi,
Jharkhand, 834001, through it's Authorised Signatory, Ravi Ranjan
Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Gopal Singh, Age: about 36 years, Near Panch
Mandir Adarsh Colony, West Patel Nagar, Phulwari, Keshari Nagar,
P.O. & P.S. Phulwari, Dist: Patna, Bihar-800024.
... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, P.O. and P.S. New Delhi, New
Delhi-110001.
2. State of Jharkhand, serviced through Secretary, Department of
Finance, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004.
3. Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S Dhurwa,
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004.
4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S Dhurwa,
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004.
5. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S
Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004.
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rahul Tangri, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mrs. Ekta Jhunjhuwala, Advocate
Mr. Kunal Kapur, Advocate
For the Union of India: Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
---------
03/Dated: 13.02.2025
1) Heard both sides.
2) In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order of
adjudication in FORM GST DRC-07 dt. 30.08.2024 issued by
the 5th respondent under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017
read with Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for financial year 2019-
2020.
3) Sri V. Laxmikumaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner, contends that in the impugned order passed by
the 5th respondent, he had denied benefit of input tax credit,
contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Bharti Airtel
Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [Civil
Appeal Nos. 10409-10410 of 2014 dt. 20.11.2024] reported in
2024 INSC 880 and further explained and applied in the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in Indus Towers Limited vs.
Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 14710/2024 dt.
12.12.2024]. He contends that the Supreme Court and the
Delhi High Court in both the aforesaid judgments have held that
mobile towers are not "immovable properties", that they can be
treated as "goods" and also as "inputs" used for providing
output service of telecommunication, that they do not fall within
the ambit of section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, and input tax
credit cannot be denied.
4) He also fairly contends that the 5th respondent did not have the
benefit of these two judgments when he passed the impugned
order on 30.08.2024, and prays that the matter be remitted to
the said respondent for reconsideration of the issue in the light
of the decisions (referred to supra).
5) Counsel for the respondents states that they have no objection
if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted
back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration in the light of
the aforesaid two judgments.
6) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 5th respondent is set-aside.
Matter is remitted back to the 5th respondent to consider afresh
in the light of the above judgments. The said reconsideration
shall be done after hearing both parties and a fresh order be
passed within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Sharda/MM/
Cp.02
