Supreme Court of India19 August 2026

Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi Etc. v. Bharti Airtel Ltd

For assessee

SLP (CIVIL) NO (S). 22060-22062 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Review petition dismissed against dismissal of SLP that telecommunication towers does not qualify test of permanency as they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature, they can be considered as moveable property eligible for ITC

Provisions considered

Section 17 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 136 of Constitution of India

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Madras High Court28 Aug 2026

For assessee

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts

Delhi High Court10 Aug 2026

For revenue

Riveria Commercial Developers Ltd. v. Union of India

Where petitioners challenged constitutional validity of section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act regarding blocked credit for works contract for construction of immovable property invoking functionality test and apprehended loss of benefits due to litigation delay, since challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court, functionality test was to be applied case wise

CGST S.17

GSTAT Kolkata5 Aug 2026

Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd

Input tax credit in respect of MEIS duty scrips could not be excluded from aggregate value of exempt supplies for period prior to Notification No 14 of 2022 as amendment to Rule 43 excluding value of duty credit scrips was intended to operate prospectively and ITC being concessional in nature could not be claimed retrospectively as vested right GST: Where assessee had disclosed availment of ITC on outward supply of MEIS duty credit scrips in GSTR-3B and department was aware of such transactions, there was no concealment of facts or intention to evade tax, and therefore fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression could not be alleged merely because assessee claimed retrospective benefit of amendment to Rule 43, making invocation of section 74(1) unsustainable and requiring fresh determination of tax liability

Related rulings

Madras High Court28 Aug 2026

For assessee

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

Delhi High Court10 Aug 2026

For revenue

Riveria Commercial Developers Ltd. v. Union of India

CGST S.17

GSTAT Kolkata5 Aug 2026

Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi Etc. v. Bharti Airtel Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi Etc. v. Bharti Airtel Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

Riveria Commercial Developers Ltd. v. Union of India

Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd

Read the full analysis