If statute can give credit... can also bar", argues ASG N. Venkataraman in Safari Retreats before SC

Primarily arguing on the constitutional framework and interpretation and interplay of Section 16 and 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017 Mr. Venkataraman stresses that Statute specifically debars credit when goods/services are used ‘on own account’ [which is not defined].

In rebuttal to Petitioner’s argument that when an immovable property is constructed for pupose of letting, tax chain is not broken and denial of credit is arbitrary. ASG argues that the denial is since 2011 and has never been given in past.

Since there is no GST on mall (an immovable property), ASG argues that Petitioner is putting the credit claim to one stage anterior and law 'left right and centre' will operate only within the circumference

of goods and services and the credit chain link gets automatically broken the moment cement, steel is used for mall construction.

ASG vehemently questions, as to how can a credit be availed when the assimilation of credits pertains to a structure (immovable property) which is not 'goods'.

He emphasises that cascading effect qua a structure does not happen when the underlying structure is not liable to GST and that credit is allowed for an anterior stage at a subsequent stage and Petitioner cannot jump and claim credit against renting service.

Basing his arguments primarily on various statutory provisions and constitutional framework,

ASG argues that if Statute can give credit it can also bar credit and that every stage in credit chain should involve goods or services and that as a policy maker, Govt. can decide what to allow as ITC.

Mr. Venkataraman further argues that there is no denial of extension of credit since same was not allowed even in pre-GST era and hence, there existed no vested right to claim such credit