Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt Ltd., a joint venture of NTPC, GAIL, and the Maharashtra State Government, took over Dabhol Power Company. Following a demerger, the LNG terminal was transferred to a petitioner engaged in regassification of LNG. The petitioner sought an advance ruling on the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for constructing a breakwater wall to protect its jetty. Both the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority denied ITC, concluding the breakwater did not qualify as "plant and machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act. The petition challenging this decision was dismissed by the court.

1. Background:

   • Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt Ltd. incorporated in July 2005.
   • Took over Dabhol Power Company, with LNG terminal transferred to petitioner.
   • Petitioner, a subsidiary of GAIL, engages in LNG regassification.

2. Petitioner's GST Compliance:

   • Petitioner pays CGST and MGST on regassification services.
   • Files returns as per CGST Act.

3. LNG Import Process:

   • LNG imported via sea, received at petitioner’s jetty.
   • Transferred to regassification plant’s cryogenic storage tanks.

4. Need for Breakwater Construction:

   • Existing breakwater partially constructed by Dabhol Power Company.
   • Ensures safety of jetty and LNG carriers during monsoon.

5. Construction and Costs:

   • Tender awarded to Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
   • Total cost of Rs. 600 crores, divided between materials and services.

6. Application for Advance Ruling:

   • Filed under Section 97 of the CGST Act.
   • Sought ruling on eligibility for ITC on breakwater construction.

7. Authority for Advance Ruling Decision:

   • Denied ITC eligibility for breakwater construction.
   • Breakwater not considered "plant and machinery".

8. Appeal and Confirmation:

   • Appeal filed before Maharashtra Appellate Authority.
   • Appellate Authority upheld initial ruling.

9. Legal Analysis and Issue:

   • Whether ITC can be claimed on breakwater construction.
   • Breakwater deemed not to facilitate outward supply of goods/services.

10. Petitioner's Arguments:

    • Breakwater as “plant and machinery”.
    • Breakwater's specific function qualifies it as "apparatus".

11. Respondent's Counterarguments:

    • Breakwater as civil structure, not "plant and machinery".
    • Extensive civil work involved excludes it from ITC eligibility.

12. Court's Conclusion:

    • Agreement with respondents’ decision.
    • Breakwater does not qualify as “plant and machinery”.
    • Petition dismissed.