• Yes. An input tax credit can be used. The restriction in Article 17(5)(d) does not apply where the construction is not for own account.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 32 of the judgment has held that construction of immovable property intended to be sold or given on lease or license cannot be considered as “for one’s own account”.
• Furthermore, in such cases, the discussion about the need to satisfy the functionality test is purely theoretical.

• No. In case of services under works contract, the restriction is provided under section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. This is a plain reading.
• However, it can be argued that the service of works contract is also a ‘service’ by a presumed fiction within the meaning of Entry No. 6(a) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 and is therefore covered by section 17(5)(d).
• Once the works contract is also covered by section 17(5)(d), the works contract services used for the construction of the shopping center are also eligible for credit as the shopping center is not for its own account. The GST Ministry would litigate this issue as it litigates in all cases.
• Now, instead of entrusting construction work on the basis of a works contract, construction materials and services can be purchased independently.

• Yes. An input tax credit can be used. When a building is planned and constructed in such a way as to meet particular technical requirements, the building qualifies as a facility according to the functionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments. The technical drawing could support this point of view.
• The question of whether a construction qualifies as a factory within the meaning of the expression “installation or machinery” must be determined based on the person’s business and the role that this building plays in the business.
• If the structure is a tool for the company, the one that generates income will not only be treated like a factory.

• No. Buildings constructed for purely administrative purposes are not considered a factory. They are not planned and built to serve any special technical requirements.
• The Supreme Court clarified that construction is said to be for the personal benefit of a person if it is used as framework in which the business is carried out.‘
• The ITC is not eligible for local purchases of goods or services, nor for services linked to works contracts.
• The real test is whether your building is intended only to house machines or people (your income generators), the credit is not eligible. However, if the building/structure itself is an income generator, on which you pay the output tax credit, you can claim a credit. (example: as a service provider)

• Considering that a hotel or a cinema hall is not merely a setting in which the business is carried out but a means/tool ​​by which revenue is generated, the honorable Supreme Court will have to decide the eligibility of the ITC for the construction of a hotel or a cinema hall. theater and hotel in light of the specific clauses of section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act, 2017.
• In our view, the decision in Anand Theaters may not be very relevant in the GST context for various reasons.

• By analogy with the judgment, it can be said that input tax credit is eligible on goods and services used for construction of warehouses, cold rooms, co-working spaces, dry docks, ponds, multi-level car parking systems, etc.
• The functionality test can be satisfied very easily for these structures.

7. Whether ITC is eligible on elevators, DG sets, escalators, central air conditioning, electrical appliances, sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants.

• Yes
• Including civil foundations and structural supports to the above elements