GST clarification requests cannot be compelled where chargeability must be determined under the governing tax statutes and contract terms are clear.

GST liability for battery energy storage systems had to be determined under the CGST, SGST and IGST Acts and the rules made under them. Section 168 of the CGST Act enables directions for uniform implementation, but it does not impose a duty on the tax administration to issue taxpayer-specific clarifications on chargeability. The court therefore rejected the request for a GST clarification. It also found no ambiguity in the bidding terms, because the request expressly stated that tariff was exclusive of GST and any leviable GST on storage service would be passed through to the buying entity. The petition was dismissed, including because the grievance could have been raised earlier in the pre-bid stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether directions could be issued to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to clarify the applicability of GST to battery energy storage systems; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in respect of the request for selection and the alleged ambiguity concerning GST.

Issue (i): whether directions could be issued to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to clarify the applicability of GST to battery energy storage systems.

Analysis: GST liability arises under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and any question on leviability must be answered with reference to those statutes and the rules made thereunder. Section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits the issuance of orders, instructions or directions to Central Officers for uniformity in implementation, but does not create a duty to issue individual clarifications on taxpayer queries. The requested direction, therefore, could not be granted.

Conclusion: The request for a direction to issue GST clarification was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in respect of the request for selection and the alleged ambiguity concerning GST.

Analysis: The request for selection expressly provided that the quoted tariff would be exclusive of GST and that any GST on storage service, if leviable, would be passed through to the buying entity. On that basis, there was no ambiguity in the bidding conditions. The petitioner and its members were required to ascertain taxability under the governing GST enactments, and no binding clarification on chargeability could be issued by the procuring entity. The petition was also considered highly delayed, since any concern could have been raised in the pre-bid process.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both statutory and procedural grounds and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxpayer-specific clarification on GST liability cannot be compelled from the tax administration where the levy must be determined under the governing GST statutes, and contractual bidding terms that expressly make tariff exclusive of GST cannot be treated as ambiguous merely because taxability is disputed.

---