⛔Important Update, Don't scroll without reading and sharing: Day 2: Safari Retreat: Supreme Court Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) N. Venkataraman argues, "ITC Neither Vested Nor Statutory Right." He further argues as follows:

✳️ITC is only a concession or benefit and neither a vested nor a statutory right. ✳️ ITC can be granted only through a legislative policy and not a Court decision.

✳️ ITC on goods or services that get assimilated into the immovable property need not be allowed both under the constitution and the relevant Statutes.

✳️ While ITC on goods/services is always available as long as a completion certificate (CC) is not issued and GST is paid on the constructed property, however, if the constructed building becomes immovable, it moves out of Article 246A and

settles under Article 49, List 2 and therefore goes out of GST purview.

✳️ He adds that, whether it is a sale, self-use, lease/rent or subsequent sale after lease/rent, will make no difference since there will be no GST under any of the circumstances and therefore, the question of granting an ITC does not arise.

✳️ ASG further submits that, a tax on land and building is distinct from a tax on "usage" of land and building. ✳️ASG’s argument that credit is inadmissible since tax chain is broken, he states that there is no such concept of missing link,

and immovable property is a term to be accorded a wide meaning to include (i) Right (ii) Title and (iii) Interest and what is taxed under GST is ‘right to use’ property and there is no reason why ITC (of goods and

services used in the construction of that immovable property) should be disallowed. I would like to thank @taxsutra for sharing these updates through Litigation Tracker.