NHAI advance ruling voided for lacking standing as service receiver under Section 95 CGST Act 2017

AAR UP declared void ab-initio an advance ruling regarding GST liability on transmission line shifting work. The applicant NHAI, being a receiver of services from MVVNL rather than a supplier, lacked standing to seek advance ruling under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017. The ruling addressed concerns about potential double taxation where NHAI paid GST to both contractors and MVVNL for the same work, but was ultimately voided due to jurisdictional issues rather than substantive merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the work done by NHAI in shifting transmission lines for road widening under MVVNL supervision constitutes a supply as per section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Whether GST is payable to MVVNL on the full amount of work done for shifting the transmission lines by NHAI.
3. Whether paying GST on the same transaction to two separate entities constitutes double taxation.

Issue 1: Definition of Supply
The applicant, NHAI, sought clarification on whether the work done in shifting transmission lines for road widening under MVVNL supervision falls under the definition of supply as per section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) replied in the negative, indicating that such work does not constitute a supply under the specified section.

Issue 2: GST Payment to MVVNL
NHAI also inquired whether GST should be paid to MVVNL on the full amount of work done for shifting the transmission lines. The AAR again replied in the negative, stating that GST is not payable to MVVNL for the work done by NHAI.

Issue 3: Double Taxation
NHAI raised concerns about potential double taxation if GST is paid on the entire value of work done to both its contractors and MVVNL. The AAR referenced their answers to the first two questions, implying that since the work does not constitute a supply and GST is not payable to MVVNL, the issue of double taxation does not arise.

Review and Findings:
The AAR reviewed the initial ruling in light of section 102 and section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was observed that the application for advance ruling was based on the misrepresentation that NHAI is the receiver of services/goods in the case of shifting transmission lines. According to section 95(a) of the CGST Act, only the supplier of goods or services can file an application for advance ruling.

Final Ruling:
The AAR concluded that no ruling could be given on the matter as NHAI, being the receiver of services/goods, is not eligible to seek an advance ruling. Consequently, Advance Ruling No. UP ADRG-17/2022 dated 08.12.2022 was declared void ab-initio in terms of Section 104 of the CGST Act.

Validity:
This ruling is valid within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh, and is subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, until declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.

---