IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 2874 of 2024 M/s Indus Tower Limited, a limited company, having its principal place of business at 3rd Floor, Le Desire Complex, 71 Circular Road, W No. 21, Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001, through its Authorized Signatory Shri Nikhil Kumar, Aged about 51 years, Son of Shri Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of Sumitra Sadan, Gaytri Nagar, P.O. Sampatchak, P.S. Pakri, District Patna- 800020 (Bihar). …… ….. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of State Tax, having his Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner of State Tax, Jharkhand Goods & Service Tax, having his Office at Utpad Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Gonda, P.S. University, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, Ranchi, having its office at Court Compound, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, having its office at North Block, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi-110001, through its Chairman. 5. The Chairperson, Goods and Services Tax Council, having its office at 5th Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, P.O. & P.S. Connaught Place, District New Delhi 110001. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant: Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Tangri, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha, Advocate Mrs. Ekta Jhunjhuwala, Advocate Mr. Kunal Kapur, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the CGST : Mr. PAS Pati, Sr.S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr.S.C. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Srijan, Advocate --------- 12 /Dated: 13.02.2025 1) Heard both sides. 2) In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order of adjudication in FORM GST DRC-07 dt. 29.4.2024 issued by the -2- 3rd respondent under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for financial year 2018-2019. 3) Sri V. Laxmikumaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that in the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, he had denied benefit of input tax credit, contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [Civil Appeal Nos. 10409-10410 of 2014 dt. 20.11.2024] reported in 2024 INSC 880 and further explained and applied in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Indus Towers Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 14710/2024 dt. 12.12.2024]. He contends that the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court in both the aforesaid judgments have held that mobile towers are not “immovable properties”; that they can be treated as “goods” and also as “inputs” used for providing output service of telecommunication; they do not fall within the ambit of section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act; and input tax credit cannot be denied. 4) He also fairly contends that the 3rd respondent did not have the benefit of these two judgments when he passed the impugned order on 29.4.2024 and prays that the matter be remitted to the said respondent for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the decisions (referred to supra). 5) Counsel for the respondents states that they have no objection if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the aforesaid two judgments -3- 6) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.4.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent is set-aside. Matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent to consider afresh in the light of the above judgments. The said reconsideration shall be done after hearing both parties and a fresh order be passed within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02