OCTOBER 04, 2024

By R K Singh

IN the case of Safari Retreats Private Ltd. [2024-TIOL-101-SC-GST], Supreme Court has inter alia in effect concluded/held that the amplitude of the word plant in plant or machinery cannot be restricted by the amplitude of the definition of "plant and machinery" given in the Explanation in section 17 of the CGST Act; in other words, the scope of the word plant in plant or machinery can cover things which are outside the purview of the definition of "plant and machinery". This article argues that this conclusion is fundamentally flawed. As brevity is the soul of not only wit but also of clarity and precision, I shall be brief, though it is easy to be prolix.

2. Explanation in s.17 ibid containing the definition of "plant and machinery" applies to Chapters V and VI of the Act ibid which means it obviously applies to s.17 also as that section is contained in Part V thereof. Let us also admit that the definition of "plant and machinery" will not apply to plant or machinery. The question is whether plant in 'plant or machinery' can be given a wider amplitude than the amplitude allowed by the definition of "plant and machinery"? The answer is 'no' for the reasons given below.

3. The two words (namely, plant, machinery) appear in the same section s. 17 ibid; in sec 17(5)(c) as plant and machinery and in s.17(5)(d) as plant or machinery. It is noteworthy that in neither clauses [(c) and/or (d)] they (i.e. plant and machinery, plant or machinery) are placed within the inverted commas nor are they hyphenated (i.e. they are not written as plant-and-machinery, plant-or-machinery). Consequently, the three words, plant and machinery, in s. 17(5)(c) or the three words, plant or machinery, in s. 17(5)(d) are not required to be treated as non-vivisectible. As per settled law, the meaning of a word appearing at more than one place in the same section cannot be attributed different meanings, (save when it appears at one place as a noun and at the other place as a verb). Therefore, plant in section 17(5)(c) cannot be given a meaning different from meaning of plant in s.17(5)(d). Thus, for section 17, "plant" axiomatically (without exception) will have to be a subset of plant and machinery. One need not be an expert of set theory to realize and concede that A will necessarily (without exception) have to be a subset of A and B; any other proposition will be beyond absurd.

4. Interestingly and strangely, in the said judgement a lot is attempted to be turned on the inverted commas for interpreting s.17(5)(c) and (d) even though inverted commas don't even exist in any of the said two clauses [namely (c) and (d)]. A view can be sustainably taken that in the said definition, the three words, plant and machinery, are placed within inverted commas and, therefore, the said three words have to be read together. Without quarrelling with that view in principle, it is easy to show that in the present context that view would not lead to a conclusion that plant in s.17(5)(d) can have an amplitude wider than the amplitude allowed by the definition of "plant and machinery". It is so because, as stated earlier, in s.17(5)(c), the three words, plant and machinery, are not put within inverted commas nor are they hyphenated. [Likewise, the three words, plant or machinery, in 17(5)(d) have also not been put within inverted commas nor are they hyphenated.] So, if the said inverted commas were indeed so crucial for interpretation, then the definition of "plant and machinery" would not even be applicable to s.17(5)(c) because "plant and machinery" does not find mention therein, only plant and machinery does. However, it has not been anybody's case (and rightly so) that the definition of "plant and machinery" does not apply to plant and machinery (without inverted commas) mentioned in s.17(5)(c). That being the case, the said inverted commas around the three words, plant and machinery, in the Explanation lose significance of the type (sought to be) attributed to them. Once it is admitted (and it has indeed been admitted) that the said definition of "plant and machinery" applies to plant and machinery (in spite of being unhyphenated and devoid of inverted commas) and as the word plant appearing at different places in the same section cannot be attributed different meanings, plant will necessarily and without exception have to be subset of plant and machinery.

5. In the light of the foregoing, it axiomatically follows that at least in the context of s.17 ibid, if something is not covered within the amplitude of plant and machinery, then that thing in no circumstance can be covered within the scope of plant either because the latter (i.e. plant) is a subset of the former (i.e. plant and machinery). The inescapable consequence of this is that in the context of s.17 ibid, if some immovable property is not plant and machinery, then in no circumstance can that immovable property be "plant".

6. Thus, Hon'ble Court seems to have grievously erred. That said, now that supreme court has spoken, I bow to the wisdom of the superior (nay, supreme) court.

[The author is former Member CESTAT and Sr. Partner, TLC Legal Advocates. The views expressed are strictly personal.]