Pudukottai Green Power Pvt Ltd VS NHPC Limited

The petitioner in this case is seeking a Writ of Mandamus, a legal order compelling action, to be directed towards the first respondent. Specifically, the petitioner requests the refund of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component amounting to Rs. 43,73,269/- for the period spanning from July 2017 to June 2021. Additionally, the petitioner seeks interest at a rate of 18% per annum on this refund. Furthermore, they ask for a directive for the first respondent to pay the GST on lease rent along with the lease rent itself.

The petitioner’s argument revolves around the business activities of the first respondent, which primarily involve power generation. They claim that the first respondent intended to establish a power generation facility.

The petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the first respondent to refund the GST Component of Rs.43,73,269/- along with interest at 18% per annum, covering the period from July 2017 to June 2021. Additionally, they request that the first respondent pay the GST on lease rent.

The petitioner, engaged in the generation of power, intended to set up a 50MW solar power project in Tamil Nadu. To facilitate this, they identified lands in Theni and Dindigul Districts totaling 250.18 acres. Subsequently, they entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent on May 26, 2017, granting the land for 27 years for the purpose of establishing the power project.

According to the petitioner, the lease agreement included a clause (clause 14) stipulating that the payment of taxes, rates, cess, and other levies, including penalties on Corporation/Municipal/Panchayat property tax, Urban Land tax, etc., due to the State and Central Government or other local or civil authorities, would be the responsibility of the first respondent.

The petitioner argues that they fulfilled their obligation under the agreement by entrusting the land for the solar power project. However, they claim that the first respondent failed to pay the GST component and lease rent as agreed upon in the lease agreement.

As a result, the petitioner seeks legal recourse through a Writ of Mandamus to compel the first respondent to refund the GST component and pay the GST on lease rent, along with accrued interest. They assert that the first respondent’s failure to fulfill their financial obligations under the lease agreement has caused them financial harm and seek redress through the legal system.

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to compel the first respondent to refund the GST Component of Rs. 43,73,269/- and pay interest at 18% per annum for the period July 2017 to June 2021, along with directing the payment of GST on lease rent. The petitioner, involved in power generation, entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent for land in Tamil Nadu to set up a 50MW solar power project. The agreement stipulated that the first respondent would bear taxes, rates, cess, and other levies. However, the introduction of central GST in July 2017 led to a dispute over who should bear the GST on the lease. The petitioner argues that clause 14 of the agreement does not obligate them to bear the GST and contends that GST on land and buildings is legally contentious and pending before the Supreme Court of India. They argue that as the subject falls under Entry 49 of List II of Schedule 7, only state legislation can impose such taxes. Therefore, the petitioner seeks relief from the court to resolve the issue and obtain a refund of the GST component.

The petitioner in this case is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the first respondent to refund the GST component of Rs. 43,73,269/- for the period spanning July 2017 to June 2021, along with 18% interest per annum. Additionally, they request that the first respondent pay the GST on lease rent along with the lease rent itself.

The petitioner, engaged in the business of power generation, intended to establish a 50MW solar power project in Tamil Nadu. To facilitate this, they identified land in Theni and Dindigul Districts totaling 250.18 acres and entered into a long-term lease agreement with the first respondent on May 26, 2017. This agreement entrusted the land to the first respondent for 27 years for the purpose of setting up the power project.

Clause 14 of the agreement stipulated that taxes, rates, cess, and other levies, including penalties, would be borne by the petitioner. However, the introduction of central GST on July 1, 2017, imposed a tax burden on the project, particularly on the land lease, which the first respondent argued should be borne solely by the petitioner.

The petitioner contests this interpretation, asserting that clause 14 does not encompass GST on land, as the taxation of land and buildings is a contentious issue pending before the Supreme Court of India. They argue that unless resolved, such taxation cannot be legislated by parliament, as it falls under Entry 49 of List II, the State List of Schedule 7 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the petitioner contends that clause 14 only applies to taxes imposed by state or central governments or local authorities, such as Corporation/Municipal/Panchayat tax or Urban Land tax, and not to post-agreement tax introductions like GST.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks reimbursement of the GST paid, arguing that it should be borne by the first respondent. They base this claim on the understanding that any new tax introductions, like GST, fall under the purview of the first respondent, as per the terms of the lease agreement.

In summary, the petitioner asserts that they should not be responsible for the GST component introduced after the agreement’s signing and seeks legal remedy through the Writ of Mandamus to recover the amount paid.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: