In re NIKO (NECO) Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh)
If transfer of Block Interest qualifies as a slump sale under the Income Tax Act, 1961, whether exemption from GST levy can be claimed on the same by the applicant?
We have gone through the entire submission made by the applicant regarding the applicability of the GST rate to the aforesaid transaction. But, before going into the merits of the case, we examine the plea made by the applicant before this authority in his letter dated: 16.03.2020 claiming that the payment of taxes on the transaction sought under the ruling had already been made in the month of February and they no longer find any necessity to obtain clarification or ruling in the same matter. While considering the request of the applicant for ‘withdrawal of the application, positively, this authority passed the following order with a direction that fees already paid shall not be refunded and the same stands as forfeited.
Since the applicant withdrew the application, we find no reason to go into the merits of the case and it is dismissed as withdrawn and therefore no Ruling is given.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
(Under sub-section (4) of Section 98 of Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 and sub- section (4) of Section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 20.17)
1. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 and AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to CGST Act and APGST Act respectively) by M/s. NIKO (NECO) Limited, (hereinafter referred to as applicant), registered under the Goods & Services Tax.
2. The provisions of the CGST Act and APGST Act arc identical, except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a specific mention of the dissimilar provision is made, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the APGST Act. Further, henceforth, for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, a reference to such a similar provision under the CGST or AP GST Act would be mentioned as being under the GST Act.
3. Brief Facts of the case:
M/s. NIKO (NECO) Limited, (herein referred to as applicant), holding GSTIN 37AACCN44o3B1Z1, has been engaged in the business of exploration and production of oil and gas in India and is a step down subsidiary in the Cayman Islands of Niko Resources (Cayman) Limited, which is a subsidiary of Niko Resources Limited (‘Niko’), a company incorporated in Canada.
1. In India, the Applicant along with Reliance Industries Ltd (‘Reliance’) and BP Exploration (Alpha) Ltd (`BP’) had entered into the Production Sharing Contract (PSC’) with Indian Government for undertaking exploration and production of oil and gas in KG D6 block. The Applicant is registered with GST Authorities vide GSTIN 37AACCN4403B1Z1 and has been regularly paying GST liabilities and filing GST returns.
2. The following table captures the flow of events of NEC() ill India w.r.t. KG D6 block in relation to the PSC:
