Case Details: Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 41 Centax 362 (A.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
- Shri Sai Sundeep Manchikalapudi, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Suresh Kumar Routhu, Sr. SC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in the supply of solar engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects relating to solar power generating systems. An assessment order was passed in respect of such supplies, and the same was brought under challenge during the pendency of the writ petition. The assessing authority applied the Explanation inserted by Notification No. 24/2018, dated 31-12-2018, to Sl. No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017, dated 28-06-2017, and adopted a 70:30 split between goods and services taxable at different rates. The petitioner contended that the transaction was a composite supply taxable at 5% under Section 8 of the CGST Act and further contended that the Explanation was optional and operative only from 01-01-2019. The authority relied upon Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST, dated 06-10-2021, to apply the Explanation to the earlier turnover. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST, dated 06-10-2021, only extended the applicability of the Explanation at the option of the taxpayer and did not mandate absolute retrospective application of the Explanation introduced with effect from 01-01-2019. The Court further held that the assessing authority had failed to examine whether the supplies resulted in immovable property coming into existence or whether the supply was for the installation of movable goods so as to determine the applicability of Section 8 and the relevant rate notification. It was also held that the authority had not examined the turnover relatable to the period prior to 01-01-2019 and had incorrectly assumed retrospective operation of the Circular. Accordingly, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration to determine the nature of supply and applicability of the Explanation, while keeping the question of vires open.
List of Cases Cited
- Arka Green Power (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh — 2025:APHC:59797 — Referred [Para 8]
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner ST — 2025:APHC:56076 — Referred [Para 8]
- Sterling and Wilson (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner — (2025) 26 Centax 301 (A.P.) = 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 402 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 8]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- Circular No.163/19/2021-GST, dated 06.10.2021
