Strict Interpretation Archives

Shelf Drilling Judgment: A Case of Interpretive Disagreements

August 11, 2025 by Rav Singh

The Supreme Court in a split judgment left unresolved the long standing issue of interplay between Section 144C-Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’). The absence of a clear resolution while not ideal, provides an insight into different interpretive attitudes towards procedural issues in tax. In this article, I make a few broad points on the interpretive approaches both the judges adopted when faced with a question that did not have a clear answer, but at the same time, a question seems to have acquired more complexity than warranted.

Issue

The panoramic question was: whether timelines for ‘specific assessments’ in Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’) are independent of or subsumed in the general timelines for assessments provided in Section 153 of the IT Act, 1961?

Section 144C provides the procedure and timelines for a specific kind of assessments which typically involve foreign companies. If the assessing officer makes any change in the assessment which is prejudicial to the assessee, then Section 144C prescribes a procedure which includes forwarding a draft assessment order to the assessee. If the assessee has any objections after receiving the draft assessment order, it may approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). Section 144C, in turn, empowers DRP to issue binding directions to the assessing officer. And the latter has to complete the assessment as per the said directions. Section 153, in comparison, is a general provision which prescribes timelines for completion of assessments and reassessments. The assessing officer ordinarily has 12 months, after the end of a financial year, to complete any assessment.

Opinions that do not ‘Converse’

In the impugned case, both judges framed the issue identically but answered it in diametrically opposite fashion. The divergent conclusions were a result of the different interpretive approaches adopted by both judges and their differing opinions as to what each of them considered relevant factors to adjudicate the case. The jarring part is that there seems to be no single point of consensus between the two judges. At the same time, while Justice Nagarathna does mention some points of disagreement with Justice SC Sharma’s opinion, the latter does not even mention or even superficially engage with her opinion. And consequently, Justice SC Sharma fails to tell us as to why he disagrees with Justice Nagarathna. It is left for us to arrive at our deductions and conclusions. I indulge in a preliminary attempt at this exercise and identify how both judges approached the issue and interpreted the relevant provisions and their respective reasonings.

Modes Of Interpretation

It is trite that tax statutes need to be interpreted strictly. Justice Nagarathna in her opinion went into significant detail about the appropriate interpretive approach in tax law disputes and cited various judicial precedents to lend support to her view of the necessity of strict interpretation. One offshoot of the doctrine of strict interpretation is that if the provision(s) is clear, plain, and unambiguous and inviting only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is this interpretive approach that guided her opinion that the issue of interplay between Section 144C-Section 153 was simply of statutory interpretation. She added that courts should not opine about the adequacy of the timelines available to the assessing officer or to the assessee as it would undermine the cardinal principles of tax law interpretation. So, if a strict interpretation of the provisions meant that an assessing officer would have limited time to complete assessments, so be it. It is for the Parliament to look into the adequacy of time available to the officers and assessees, not courts.

Justice SC Sharma had no qualms – superficial or otherwise – about the need to follow strict interpretation. His approach was of a ‘balancing act’, literally. He clearly says that the Court must be alive to the ‘fine balance’ that needs to be maintained between tax officers having sufficient time to scrutinise income tax returns to prevent tax evasion and the right of assessees to not have their returns scrutinised after a certain amount of time. And in doing so, he stresses on the need for harmonious interpretation, the need to make various provisions of the IT Act, 1961 work. As is wont, a balancing act tends to lead to a half-baked solution. And Justice SC Sharma’s conclusion is one such solution where he concludes that the timelines prescribed in Section 153 are not completely irrelevant to Section 144C. The assessing officer is bound to complete the draft assessment order within the timelines mentioned in Section 153, and not the final assessment order. So he binds the assessing officer to complete half a job within the timeline prescribed by Section 153, but not the complete job. As per him, the final assessment order can be passed even after the limit set of Section 153. This is certainly not a strict interpretation of tax law provisions, but a judge’s subjective view of what is a ‘reasonable time’ for an assessing officer to complete an assessment.

Relevance of Administrative Inconvenience

Justice SC Sharma’s opinion is littered with his concern for tax officers of this country and their inability to complete assessments in a short time if the time period under Section 144C is interpreted to be subsumed in the time period provided in Section 153. He stated that in such a scenario, the tax officer will have to work ‘backwards’ and allow for a period of nine months to the DRP. As per Section 144C, if an assessee objects to the draft assessment order and refers it to a DRP, the latter has nine months to issue directions to the officer for completion of assessment and its directions are binding on the assessing officer. So, the assessing officer has to complete the draft assessment order by anticipating that objections may be raised before DRP, else the final assessment may not be completed within the timeline prescribed in Section 153. Justice Sharma was of the opinion that the Parliament ‘could not have conceived’ such a procedure to be followed by an assessing officer. The root cause of his concern was that the time window to complete the final assessment would be ‘negligible’ since ordinarily an assessment is to be completed within 12 months from end of the financial year in which the remand order is received from the tribunal. And this narrow time window, in his view, would ‘result in a complete catastrophe for recovering lost tax.’

Justice Nagarathana, however, dismissed the concern of unworkability of timelines. She said that failure of the assessing officer to meet the statutory timeline cannot be the basis of assuming any absurdity. The Revenue argued that if an assessing officer has to work backwards, the timelines may not be met, leading to an absurdity. I do agree with Justice Nagarathana that if for a specific set of assesses the assessing officers have to work backwards to respect the timelines, it does not make the provisions unworkable or absurd. How is working backwards to accommodate statutory prescribed timelines an absurd position? An assessing officer has to essentially accommodate nine months of time accorded to DRP in Section 144C and issue a draft assessment order accounting for that time. The actual absurdity is in the Revenue’s argument that an assessing officer accounting for the time that DRP may consume is a ground for extending statutory prescribed timelines.

Also, Justice Nagarathana made it clear that merely because the assessee may opt for raising objections against the draft assessment order and approach the DRP cannot be a factor for increasing the timeline. The assessee cannot be prejudiced for exercising a right prescribed in the statute. Justice SC Sharma’s opinion though suggests that the exact opposite and implies that the assessee exercising the right to file objections and approach DRP is a good reason to extend timelines. And in implying so, he adopts a tenuous position.

Impact of Non Obstante Clause(s)

Our tax statutes contain non-obstante clauses galore, but their import and impact is understood differently based on the context. In the impugned case, Justice Nagarathana noted that the context and legislative intent of a non-obstante clause is vital to understand its import. Applying the above dictum, she held that the non-obstante clause in Section 144C(1) was only regarding the special procedure prescribed in the provision and not for the timelines enlisted in Section 153. She elaborated that Section 144C is only applicable to ‘eligible assessees’ and the provision mandates the assessing officer to forward a draft assessment order, while in all other cases a final assessment order is issued directly. Since Section 144C prescribes a special procedure for the eligible assessees, it overrides only those provisions of the IT Act, 1961 which prescribe a different procedure. Section 144C does not override all the provisions of the IT Act, 1961.

Based on the above reasoning, Justice Nagarathana concluded that the effect of non-obstante clause of Section 144C(1) is not to override Section 153. But why? This is because as per Justice Nagarathana, the latter was not contrary to the former. She added that if Section 144C is construed to extend the limitation period prescribed under Section 153, it would lead to an ‘absurd result’ as the scope and ambit of two provisions is distinct. She was clear that Section 153 prescribes timelines for assessments and reassessments while Section 144C prescribes procedure for a specific set of eligible assessees. In other words, Section 153 controls the timelines for all assessments while Section 144C controls procedure for specific assessments that may encompass only a limited set of assessees. Thus, both provisions had different scope and were not at odds with each other.

One can also understand the above interpretive dilemma as an occasion where a judge faced with the relation between a general and specific provision, held that the former should serve the object and aims of the latter. Section 153 is certainly a general provision, and the timelines prescribed in it must be respected by a narrower and more specific provision such as Section 144C. Latter cannot operate at odds with the former and defeat the larger objective of completing assessments within prescribed time periods.

Justice SC Sharma’s emphasis was on the non-obstante clauses in Section 144C(4) and Section 144C(13) which specifically override Section 153. Both these sub-sections mention the assessing officer’s obligation to pass a final assessment order. Both these sub-sections obligate an assessing officer to pass a final assessment order within one month (approximately) of receiving the assessee’s acceptance and DRP’s directions respectively. Justice Sharma somehow reads into the non-obstante clauses in these two sub-sections the idea that their effect was to only extend the timeline for passing a final assessment order and not the draft assessment order. He concluded that an assessing officer will have to complete the draft assessment order within the limitations stated in Section 153.

Justice Sharma insisted that the non-obstante clauses must be construed to ‘not defeat’ the working of the IT Act, 1961 and ensure a harmonious construction of both the provisions. However, the real reason was his belief that if timelines of cases in Section 144C were subsumed in Section 153, it would be ‘practically impossible’ to complete the assessments. As discussed above, Justice Nagarathana was clear – and rightly so – that such a belief should have no role in interpretation of tax statutes. Also, Justice Sharma added that the assessing officer only acts in an executing capacity once the draft assessment order is passed, since the no new fresh issues can be raised thereafter. The implication being that the draft assessment order issued under Section 144C is effectively a final assessment order. This is convoluted phrasing and also an inaccurate understanding of assessment orders.

Use of ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ Aids for Interpretation

In the context of this discussion, let me say that an internal aid for interpretation can be understood be other provisions of the IT Act, 1961. While an external aid can include the Parliamentary discussions, committee reports, etc. Both the judges referred to external aids in the impugned case and tried to understand the rationale of impugned provisions, especially Section 144C, by citing memorandums and explanatory notes of the relevant finance acts. Justice Nagarathna cited them in significant detail and one can see that her conclusion was influenced by these external aids. The Finance Minister, when introducing the amendment via which Section 144C was inserted in the IT Act, 1961 had mentioned the need to improve climate for tax disputes, expedite the dispute resolution process, and provide an alternate dispute resolution process. Since the assessees that would benefit from Section 144C would primarily be foreign companies, the aim was to signal a more receptive tax environment for foreign investment. If expediting dispute resolution process was one of the aims of Section 144C, one could argue it was a reasonable deduction that timelines of Section 144C were subsumed in timelines of Section 153. Holding otherwise would delay the process instead of expediting it. And Justice Nagarathna was partially influenced by the purpose of introducing Section 144C before arriving at her conclusion.

Justice SC Sharma’s reliance on external aid was comparatively much more limited. He cited the relevant extracts that explained the need for Section 144C, but his focus was more on the need to harmoniously interpret Section 144C and Section 153. He tried to reason that his conclusions were aimed at making sure the IT Act, 1961 remained workable and absurdities were avoided. He primarily relied on internal aids, i.e., other provisions of the IT Act, 1961 to defend his conclusions that he said were aimed to ensure harmony amongst the various statutory provisions.

While We Await Another Judicial Opinion

Until a three-judge bench weighs in with their opinion, the interplay of Section 144C-Section 153 obviously remains without a clear answer. On balance, the reasoning adopted by Justice Nagarathna is more aligned to classical principles of tax law interpretation. But, the Indian Supreme Court has an uneven record in tax law matters and predicting what may happen next is as good as rolling the dice. In recent times, the Supreme Court’s uneven history on tax matters includes but is not limited to providing remedy to the Revenue Department without them even making a request for it. Or adopting gymnast worthy legal fictions and altering the concept of time to ostensibly balance the rights of the Revenue and the assessees. Thus, there is no predicting the outcome of this dispute, though I can go out on a limb and say that the relevant provision(s) maybe amended, and retrospectively so, if the Income Tax Department does not agree with the final verdict. Such amendments are certainly not unheard of!

Safari Retreats: Supreme Court Adopts a ‘Strict’ Stance

October 9, 2024 by Rav Singh

The Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in the Safari Retreats case a few days ago. The judgment involved interpretation of Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017, specifically clauses (c) and (d) read with two Explanations contained in the Section. The judgment has been greeted with a mixed response by tax community with some commending the Supreme Court for adhering to strict interpretation of tax statutes while others criticizing it for misreading the provision and by extension legislative intent. While a lot of ink has already been spilled in writing comments on the judgment, I think there is room for one more view.

In this article, I describe the judgment, issues involved and argue that the Supreme Court in the impugned judgment identified the issue clearly, applied the doctrine of strict interpretation of tax statutes correctly, and any criticism that the Court misread legislative intent doesn’t have strong legs. At the same time, the judgment is not without flaws. Finally, it is vital to acknowledge that the judgment is an interpretive exercise in abstract as it didn’t decide the case on facts and remanded the matter to the High Court with instructions to decide the matter on merit ‘by applying the functionality test in terms of this judgment.’ (para 67) It is in application of the functionality test where implications of the impugned judgment will be most visible.

Introduction

The writ petition before the Supreme Court was a result of Orissa High Court’s decision wherein it read down Section 17(5)(d). I’ve discussed the High Court’s judgment here, but I will recall brief facts of the case for purpose of this article: the petitioner was in the business of construction of shopping malls. During construction, the petitioner bought raw materials as inputs and utilized various input services such as engineering and architect services. The petitioner paid GST on the inputs and input services. In the process, the petitioner accumulated Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) of Rs 34 crores. After completion of construction of the shopping mall, the petitioner rented premises of the shopping mall and collected GST from the tenants. The petitioner was not allowed to claim ITC against the GST collected from the tenants. The Revenue Department invoked Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act, 2017 to block the petitioner’s ITC claim. It is worth reproducing the relevant Section 17(5)(d) and (e), as they form nucleus of the impugned judgment.

17. Apportionment of credit and blocked credits.—

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub- section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:—

(c) works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service;

(d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.

Explanation.––For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression ―construction includes re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalisation, to the said immovable property;

Another Explanation is appended to Section 17, after Section 17(6), which states as follows:

Explanation.––For the purposes of this Chapter and Chapter VI, the expression ― “plant and machinery”means 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 and includes such foundation and structural supports but excludes—

(i) land, building or any other civil structures;
(ii) telecommunication towers; and
(iii) pipelines laid outside the factory premises.

The Revenue’s argument was that the petitioner constructed an immovable property, i.e., a shopping mall on his own account and ITC in such a situation is blocked under Section 17(5)(d). The Orissa High Court read down Section 17(5)(d) and allowed the petitioner to claim ITC by reasoning that denial of ITC would lead to cascading effect of taxes. The High Court crucially did not examine if the shopping mall could be categorized in the exemption of ‘plant or machinery’. While the High Court’s judgment is not an exemplar of legal reasoning, it triggered a debate on the permissibility of petitioner’s ITC claim and the Supreme Court has clarified some issues through its judgment.

Arguments

Petitioners

The Supreme Court, in the initial pages of the judgment, laments that the arguments in the case were repetitive and cajoles lawyers to make brevity their friend. (para 6) I will try and summarise the arguments from both sides by paying heed to the above suggestion.

Petitioners argued that denial of ITC under Section 17(5)(d) amounted to treating unequals equally. Petitioners argued that renting/leasing of immovable property cannot be treated the same as sale of immovable property. There is no intelligible differentia since the transactions are different. Latter does not attract GST while the former is subject to GST. There is no break in chain in case of petitioners since both input and output are taxable under GST and blocking of ITC will lead to cascading effect of taxes and defeat a core objective of GST. It was further argued that the provision suffered from vagueness since the phrase ‘on its own account’ was not defined, and use of two different phrases – ‘plant or machinery’/ ‘plant and machinery’ – and their meanings were not sufficiently clarified by the legislature.

A ‘three-pronged’ argument of the petitioner stated that claim of ITC could be allowed without reading down Section 17(5)(d). The three prongs were:

First, clause (d) exempts ‘plant or machinery’ from blocked credit while the Explanation after Section 17(6) is applicable to ‘plant and machinery’. Thus, the Explanation is inapplicable to the clause (d). This point is further underlined by use of the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ in clause (c) indicating that the two phrases – ‘plant and machinery’/‘plant or machinery’ are different. Explanation to Section 17(6) effectively states that land, building and other civil structure cannot form ‘plant and machinery’; if the Explanation cannot be applied to clause (d) a building such as a shopping mall can be categorized as a ‘plant’ on which ITC is not blocked.

Second, it was argued that malls, hotels, warehouses, etc. are plants under Section 17(d). Stressing on strict interpretation of statutes and need to avoid cascading effect of taxes, the petitioners specifically added that the term ‘plant’ should include buildings that are an ‘essential tool of the trade’ with which the business is carried on. But, if it is merely a ‘setting within which the business’ is carried on, then the building would not qualify as a plant.

Third, it was argued that supply of service under Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Clause 2 of Schedule II includes leasing and renting of any building including a commercial or residential complex. And ITC accumulated on construction of such property should be available against such service. This argument seems to address the issue of blocking of ITC under Section 17(5) indirectly and advocated for a seamless availability of ITC. But this argument side steps the fact that a transaction can amount to supply under Section 7, and yet ITC on it can be blocked under Section 17.

The first argument though was the most crucial argument, as the latter part of this article will examine.

The State

The State’s arguments oscillated from sublime to the ridiculous. The State argued that classification of the petitioners with assessees who constructed immovable property and sold it was based on intelligible differentia. And the intelligible differentia was that both kinds of asssessees ‘created immovable property’. The State also mentioned that there was a break in the chain of tax, but this is not true for petitioner since renting of premises in the shopping mall was taxable. The petitioners were paying GST on their inputs and collecting GST on the output, i.e., renting of premises of shopping mall. The break in tax chain, as the petitioners rightly argued was only when an immovable property is sold after receiving a completion certificate as in such transactions output is not subject to GST. Further, State stressed that ITC is not a fundamental or a constitutional right and thus State has the discretion to limit the availability/block ITC. While ITC not being a right is now a well-established legal position, the State’s justification for blocking ITC in this case lacked an express and cogent reason.

The State further argued, unsuprisingly, that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ should be interpreted to mean ‘plant and machinery’. As per the State, it was not uncommon to interpret ‘or’ to mean ‘and’. I’m terming this argument as unsurprising because this is not a novel argument in taxation matters and the State even had a few authorities to back this view. The State though did admit that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ occurs only once in Chapters V and VI of the CGST Act, 2017 while the phrase ‘plant and machinery’ occurred ten times. The existence of both phrases in the CGST Act, 2017 proved crucial in the final view taken by the Supreme Court that both phrases have a different meaning. Finally, the State also cited ‘revenue loss’ as a reason for disallowing ITC. It was argued that the petitioner could claim ITC while renting/leasing the mall, but the mall would be sold after 5 or 6 years and on such sale no GST would be paid since GST is not payable on sale of immovable property sold after receiving a completion certificate. This would cause a loss to the exchequer. This again is a curious argument: if sale of immovable property does not attract GST as per the legal provisions, how can non-payment of GST in such cases cause a ‘loss’ to exchequer? Further, if blocking of ITC is done to prevent such a ‘loss’ then it defeats a central purpose of GST as a value-added tax.

Despite the voluminous arguments, if one were to identify the core issue in the judgment, it would be whether ‘or’ can mean ‘and’ and further whether a shopping mall could be termed as a ‘plant’. Supreme Court said answered the former in negative and the latter is to be decided by the High Court based on facts of the case and by applying the ‘functionality test’ endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s conclusion is based on two pillars: first, reiteration and clear articulation of the elements of strict interpretation of statutes; second, reliance on a variety of judicial precedents to endorse the functionality test.

First Pillar of the Judgment: Strict Interpretation of Tax Statutes

To begin with, strict interpretation of tax statutes is a principle that is followed universally and adhered to in most jurisdictions including India. The principle can be summarized can be expressed in a thesis length and has various nuances. In the context of impugned judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted summarized the core principles as: a taxation statute must be interpreted with no additions or subtractions; a taxation statute cannot be interpreted on any assumption or presumption; in the fiscal arena it is not the function of the Court to compel the Parliament to go further and do more and there is nothing unjust if a taxpayer escapes the letter of law due to failure of the legislature to express itself clearly. (para 25)

Second, while Courts in various judgments have stated that taxation statutes should be interpreted strictly, they have failed to apply the said principle in its true sense. But in the impugned judgment we see a correct application of the strict interpretation principle as evidenced in the following observations of the Supreme Court:

The explanation to Section 17 defines “plant and machinery”. The explanation seeks to define the expression “plant and machinery” used in Chapter V and Chapter VI. In Chapter VI, the expression “plant and machinery” appears in several places, but the expression “plant or machinery” is found only in Section 17(5)(d). If the legislature intended to give the expression “plant or machinery” the same meaning as “plant and machinery” as defined in the explanation, the legislature would not have specifically used the expression “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d). The legislature has made this distinction consciously. Therefore, the expression “plant and machinery” and “plant or machinery” cannot be given the same meaning. (para 44)

The Supreme Court in making the above observations clarified that interpreting ‘plant or machinery’ to mean same as ‘plant and machinery’ would amount to doing violence to words in the statute and in interpreting tax statutes, the Courts cannot supply deficiencies in the statute. Dominant part of the reasoning for above conclusion was derived from adherence to strict interpretation, but also that the phrase ‘plant and machinery’ occurred ten times in Chapter V and VI of the CGST Act, 2017 while the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ occurred only once indicating that the legislature intended to use different phrases at different places. Also, the Supreme Court noted that even if use of ‘or’ was a mistake the legislature had ample time since the High Court’s judgment to intervene and correct the error, but it had not done so. Hence, the assumption should be that use of the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ was not a mistake. The bulk of the reasoning though did come from principles of strict interpretation. Both, Supreme Court’s summary of principles of strict interpretation of tax statutes and its application to Section 17(5)(d) read with Explanation to Section 17(6) are a perfect example of crisp articulation of a principle and its application.

Second Pillar of the Judgment: Functionality Test

Once the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ is distinct from ‘plant and machinery’, it had to interpret meaning and scope of the former phrase since only the latter was defined under Explanation to Section 17(6). The Supreme Court clarified that the expression ‘immovable property other than plant or machinery’ used in Section 17 shows that a plant could be an immovable property. And in the absence of a definition of ‘plant’ in CGST Act, 2017 meaning of the word in commercial sense will have to be relied on. The Court cited a series of precedents where the word ‘plant’ had been interpreted and the ‘functionality test’ had been laid down. Clarifying the import of various precedents, the Supreme Court borrowed the language from previous judicial decisions and expressed the functionality test in following terms:

… if it is found on facts that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve an assessee’s special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purposes of investment allowance. The word ‘plant’ used in a bracketed portion of Section 17(5)(d) cannot be given the restricted meaning provided in the definition of “plant and machinery”, which excludes land, buildings or any other civil structures … To give a plain interpretation to clause (d) of Section 17(5), the word “plant” will have to be interpreted by taking recourse to the functionality test. (para 52)

While the functionality test expressed above provides broad guidelines, there is enough in the test to cause tremendous confusion and uncertainty once it is applied to varied fact situations. For example, the Supreme Court itself clarified that the Orissa High Court did not decide if the shopping mall of the petitioner was a ‘plant’ and the High Court needs to answer the question determine if ITC will be blocked. But even if the petitioner’s shopping mall is held to constitute a plant, it would not mean that all shopping malls will receive similar treatment. Because the Supreme Court clearly says:

‘Each mall is different. Therefore, in each case, fact-finding enquiry is contemplated.’ (para 56)

The answer on applying the functionality test would depend on facts of each case and similar buildings can be labelled as a plant or not depending on factual variations. While the Supreme Court has clarified that the functionality test is the appropriate framework to determine the eligibility for ITC in the impugned case and other similar cases, the application of it has been left to the High Court for now. Only once several such cases are decided, will be know if coherence is emerging in the interpretation and application of the functionality test. But since the functionality test is highly fact sensitive, we should expect varied answers depending on the underlying fact situation.

Finally, the Supreme Court helpfully did clarify the import and ratio of the precedents on this issue mostly notably Anand Theatres judgment. In Anand Theatres case, the issue was whether a building which is used for running a hotel or a cinema theatre can be considered as a tool for business and thus a plant for purpose of allowing depreciation under the IT Act, 1961. The Court answered in the negative, but a later decision in Karnataka Power Corporations judgment limited the decision in Anand Theatres case to only cinemas and hotels. The Supreme Court in the impugned judgment also made it amply clear that Anand Theatres case was only applicable for hotels and cinema theatres and could not be used to determine if shopping malls, warehouses, or any other building amounts to a plant. In clarifying so, the legal position that emerges is that hotels and cinema theatres are not plants while other buildings are a plant or not needs to be determined by applying the functionality test. This was a welcome clarification since there was confusion as to which decision is relevant and applicable in the context of deciding if a building is a plant or not while applying the functionality test.

Meaning of ‘On Own Account’ Lacks Proper Reasoning

A notable flaw of the judgment, which in my opinion, should be scrutinized in future decisions is the Supreme Court’s explanation of the meaning of ‘own account’. It interpreted the phrase in following terms:

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. (para 32)

The flaw in the above opinion is that it comes from ‘nowhere’. The latter element of ‘own account’ was the petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. But, in the Supreme Court in reaching this conclusion does not cite any authority or how or why does it agree with this interpretation of the phrase. The paragraphs that precede and succeed the above conclusion are focused on Supreme Court’s analysis that clause (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) are distinct and occupy different territories and its view about meaning of ‘own account’ seems to hang in air with no discernible reason to support it. One could argue that the Supreme Court’s interpretation is a commercial understanding of the phrase, but I doubt if adopting commercial meaning of the phrase can be done without stating reasons for subscribing to it.

Also, the petitioner’s had argued that ‘on own account’ should be restricted to scenarios when a building is used as a setting for carrying out the business, not when it a tool for the business. Supreme Court seems to have endorsed the distinction based on the above cited paragraph. Again, this distinction works well in abstract but applying it to the facts of each case and distinguishing between what is ‘setting for a business’ and what is merely a ‘tool for business’ may not be obvious in each case.

Implications and Way Forward

The implications of the impugned judgment are various. To begin with, the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ does not mean the same as ‘plant and machinery’. A clear and unambiguous application of the doctrine of strict interpretation of tax statutes signals and reiterates the need to adopt this doctrine while interpreting provisions of tax law. At the same time, while the Supreme Court has not inaugurated a new test, it has unambiguously thrown its weight behind a well-established test, i.e., functionality test to determine if a plant or fixture in question is a plant. And judicial decisions that have applied the functionality test in the pre-GST and IT Act, 1961 indicate that uniform answers are unlikely as the query is fact specific and so are the answers. Thus, in the foreseeable future as courts adjudicate on this issue, we should expect varied answers and not a classical coherent and uniform jurisprudence on this issue.