M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner, CGST Appeals-1 Delhi; with Indus Towers Limited and Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Others

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Three petitions challenged GST credit denial premised on telecommunication towers being immovable property. Airtel challenged its Order-in-Original of 24 March 2023 and the affirming appellate order of 31 May 2024. Indus Towers and Elevar Digitel Infrastructure, formerly ATC Telecom Infrastructure, challenged show-cause notices. The Court described Indus Towers’ passive-infrastructure business and its Section 74 notice covering 1 July 2017–31 March 2024 across 48 GST registrations. That period and registration count should not be attributed automatically to all petitioners.

The challenged notices treated inputs and input services used to establish passive infrastructure as construction of immovable property under Section 17(5)(d). Petitioners relied on dismantlability and the Supreme Court’s 2024 CENVAT decision. Revenue relied on the express exclusion of telecom towers from the statutory definition of plant and machinery.

Source: Official PDF paragraphs 1–8, physical pp. 2–8; connected identities: caption, pp. 1–2; Indus-specific facts: paragraph 3, p. 3.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Court applied the general property-law principles in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2024 INSC 880, decided 20 November 2024. That predecessor concerned CENVAT credit under the 2004 Rules. Its findings on movable towers and prefabricated shelters were reproduced; its classification of them as CENVAT capital goods or inputs was not a separate interpretation of GST’s plant-and-machinery definition.

The relevant tests examine annexation, its object, intended permanence, functionality and marketability. Towers assembled from transportable components can be unbolted, relocated and sold without damage to the tower itself. Attachment supplies stability for efficient antenna operation rather than permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land or building. Possible damage to connecting cables does not establish destruction of the tower. These principles, including the cited shelter discussion, supported rejection of Revenue’s immovable-tower premise.

The decisive GST reasoning appears in paragraphs 17–19: exclusion from the definition of plant and machinery does not itself turn a tower into immovable property. Immovability is an antecedent requirement of Section 17(5)(d). Since the towers were movable, the challenged credit denial could not survive. The judgment does not hold that telecom towers are included in that defined expression. Nor does its reproduction of CENVAT shelter reasoning certify every shelter, concrete foundation or civil-work expenditure under GST.

Source: Official PDF paragraphs 10–16, physical pp. 8–18; quoted Supreme Court paragraphs 11.8.1 and 11.9.1–11.9.9, pp. 10–14; CENVAT conclusions reproduced in paragraph 14, pp. 14–15; independent GST ratio: paragraphs 17–19, pp. 18–19.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Court allowed Airtel’s W.P.(C) 13211/2024 and quashed the orders dated 24 March 2023 and 31 May 2024. It also allowed W.P.(C) 14710/2024 and W.P.(C) 16477/2024, quashing SCN No. 67/2024-25 and SCN No. 68/2024-25 respectively, both dated 25 July 2024. There was no remand. The operative paragraphs do not direct a refund, quantify recoverable credit, impose a payment deadline or award costs.

Source: Official PDF paragraphs 20–22, physical p. 19.

04 · In favour of

This is substantive High Court relief on the legal premise of the challenged proceedings, including relief at notice stage for two petitioners. It does not determine every invoice’s eligibility or grant a quantified refund. The later Supreme Court orders leave this result undisturbed but should be described by their actual procedural terms.

Source: Official PDF paragraphs 19–22, physical p. 19; Supreme Court order of 8 August 2025, paragraphs 2–4, p. 2; review order of 19 August 2026, paragraphs 2–5, pp. 1–2.