IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 6367 of 2024 M/s Indus Tower Limited, a company, incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, registered under Goods and Services Tax laws vide Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (‘GSTIN’) 20AADCB0274F1ZE and inter alia having its office at R.S. Plot No. 995, 996 and 998, 1st Floor, Arpit Tower, Khata No. 163, Kohra Toli, Kokar Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. No. 196 (Sadar), Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001, through it’s Authorised Signatory, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Gopal Singh, Age: about 36 years, Near Panch Mandir Adarsh Colony, West Patel Nagar, Phulwari, Keshari Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Phulwari, Dist: Patna, Bihar-800024. … … … ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, P.O. and P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi-110001. 2. State of Jharkhand, serviced through Secretary, Department of Finance, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 3. Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 5. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. … … ... 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 Union of India: Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 03/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. 30.08.2024 issued by the 5th respondent under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for financial year 2019- 2020. -2- 3) Sri V. Laxmikumaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that in the impugned order passed by the 5th 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, that 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 5th respondent did not have the benefit of these two judgments when he passed the impugned order on 30.08.2024, 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 5th respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the aforesaid two judgments. 6) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 5th respondent is set-aside. -3- Matter is remitted back to the 5th 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