Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5980-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 121 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Snowwhite Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Vp- Commercial Anand Somani Authorized Representative Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Finance, Revenue Deptt. Lko. U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bimlesh Kumar,Surangama Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Dinesh Chandra Tewari,Dipak Seth,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard Shri J.K. Mittal, Adovcate assisted by Ms. Surangama Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and D.S.G.I. for the Union of India, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Dipak Seth, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 5. This petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party no. 6 in raising a demand, for payment of G.S.T. from the petitioner in respect of an amount realized by the Contractors of the petitioner, regarding which, the G.S.T. has already been paid by the petitioner to the said Contractors. According to the petitioner’s Counsel, the said demand as raised by the opposite party no. 6 vide notice dated 17.12.2022 contained as Annexure No. 6, was not payable under the G.S.T. Act, 2017. It is also his submission that during pendency of the writ petition, an advance ruling was sought under Section 98(4) of both the G.S.T. Acts, the Central and the State, and the advance ruling is in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed, especially in view of the admitted legal position, as averred in the Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. 6. However, Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 5 says that Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited has obtained an advance ruling under Section 98(4) of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, wherein the ruling is on the same line as suggested by the petitioner, and a decision has been taken by the opposite party no. 5 that all the distribution corporations should obtain similar rulings under the aforesaid provision, and also that, till such rulings are obtained by the distribution Corporations including the opposite party no. 6, the petitioner and other similarly situated would only be liable to deposit the G.S.T. on supervision charges and for rest of the amount, the may submit indemnity bond. We dispose of this petition in terms of the statement of Shri Neerav Chitravanshi and the averment made in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, meaning thereby, till an advance ruling is obtained by the opposite party no. 6, the petitioner would only be liable to pay G.S.T. on the supervision charges but it will have to furnish indemnity bond in respect of the remaining amount, and if, the G.S.T. on supervision charges has already been paid, then nothing more would be demanded by opposite party no. 6 from the petitioner as of now, till an advance ruling, if it is adverse, is given by the concerned under the relevant provision as referred hereinabove. At this stage, the petitioner's Counsel says that advance ruling has already been rendered at the behest of the opposite party no. 6 on the same lines as the ruling given in favour of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited. If it is so, then the consequences would follow accordingly as per law, in view of the statement made by Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 5. Opposite parties no. 5 & 6 to act accordingly, and if the impugned demand notice is liable to be withdrawn, then the same will be withdrawn within three weeks, and the withdrawal be communicated to the petitioner. If it is not to be withdrawn, then giving reasons, the same should be communicated to the petitioner accordingly within the said period. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench