Case Law Details
In Re SJVN Limited (GST AAR Uttarakhand)
In the case of SJVN Limited v. GST AAR Uttarakhand, the applicant, SJVN Limited, sought an advance ruling under Section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UGST Act) regarding the liability to pay GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on royalty payments. SJVN Limited, engaged in the construction of the Naitwar Mori Hydro Electric Project in Uttarkashi district, had received notices from the Assistant Commissioner of the SGST Department to pay GST under RCM on royalty for mining rights allocated to them.
The applicant’s contention was centered on whether SJVN Limited or their contractor, Jai Prakash Associates Limited, was primarily liable to pay GST under RCM on these royalty payments. The applicant stated that they had initially paid GST under RCM as per the notices received, but later learned from their contractor that the contractor had already paid GST under RCM on their behalf, supported by documentary evidence.
During the proceedings, it emerged that SJVN Limited had already been issued notices under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the same issue of GST payment on royalty under RCM. Despite this, when filing for advance ruling, SJVN Limited falsely declared that the issue was neither pending nor decided in any proceedings under the GST Act, which was untrue. The Assistant Commissioner of the SGST Department brought this discrepancy to the attention of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).
The AAR deliberated on the admissibility of the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, which states that an application cannot be admitted if the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings under the Act. The AAR noted that SJVN Limited had indeed received notices under Section 73 of the CGST Act related to the same issue of GST on royalty payments. Despite the applicant’s representative admitting during the personal hearing that such notices had been received, SJVN Limited had falsely declared otherwise in their application for advance ruling.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
