Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST Appeals-1, Delhi (connected telecom petitions)
The exclusion does not decide whether towers are movable; the court applied the independent immovable-property test and held the tower installations at issue did not attract the asserted blocked-credit provision.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26
The exclusion does not decide whether towers are movable; the court applied the independent immovable-property test and held the tower installations at issue did not attract the asserted blocked-credit provision. The petitions were allowed; Airtel’s two orders and the connected show-cause notices were quashed.
What happened
GST authorities denied telecom companies input tax credit on towers as immovable property. The connected petitions challenged Airtel’s orders and show-cause notices issued to other operators.
Questions before the court
- Does excluding telecommunication towers from “plant and machinery” itself make them immovable property and block credit under section 17(5)(d)?
Why the court ruled this way
The exclusion does not decide whether towers are movable; the court applied the independent immovable-property test and held the tower installations at issue did not attract the asserted blocked-credit provision.
Controlling point
The exclusion does not decide whether towers are movable; the court applied the independent immovable-property test and held the tower installations at issue did not attract the asserted blocked-credit provision.
Order and next steps
The petitions were allowed; Airtel’s two orders and the connected show-cause notices were quashed.
Practical implications
The operative result is case-specific: The petitions were allowed; Airtel’s two orders and the connected show-cause notices were quashed. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: A later Supreme Court dismissal of the Department’s SLP and review was reported; verify the exact subsequent orders and any later change. The retained PDF is this 2024 High Court judgment.
Limits of this ruling
- A later Supreme Court dismissal of the Department’s SLP and review was reported; verify the exact subsequent orders and any later change. The retained PDF is this 2024 High Court judgment.
Law and judgment source
- CGST Act, 2017, section 17(5)(d)
- Definition of plant and machinery
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established. The discovery article concerns a later Supreme Court proceeding; this note and retained PDF cover the earlier High Court judgment identified here. Verify the later proceeding independently.
Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 18–22 · Later case history: later history recorded. A later review or appeal was located; the disclosed subsequent proceeding must be checked for its current outcome.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.