Writ Petition Challenging GST on BOT Annuity Receipts Not Maintainable: Meghalaya HC

The Meghalaya High Court, in M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C) No. 245 of 2024), decided on June 2, 2026, held that disputes relating to the classification of services, applicability of exemption notifications and interpretation of concession agreements under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) ought to be adjudicated through the statutory appellate mechanism under the CGST Act and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked where no exceptional circumstance is made out.

The dispute arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Shillong, confirming a GST demand of approximately ₹112.39 crore against the petitioner in respect of annuity payments received under a Build-Operate-Transfer (“BOT”) (Annuity) concession agreement executed with the National Highways Authority of India for the four-laning of the Jorabat-Shillong section of National Highway-40.

The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the services provided by it were classifiable under SAC 9967 as services by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of annuity, which were exempt from GST under Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The petitioner also questioned the validity of CBIC Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated June 17, 2021, and disputed the jurisdiction of the authorities issuing the show cause notice and adjudication order. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in DPJ Bidar Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India in support of its claim for exemption.

The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It was further submitted that the officers issuing the show cause notice and adjudicating the proceedings had been validly appointed under the CGST Act and that the dispute primarily involved questions relating to classification of services, interpretation of exemption notifications and appreciation of the terms of the concession agreement, all of which required examination by the appellate authority.

The Court observed that the controversy centred on the proper classification of the services rendered by the petitioner, the applicability of the exemption notification and the interpretation of the concession agreement, which involved mixed questions of fact and law falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the statutory appellate authorities. It further held that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the proper officer was devoid of merit, as the relevant notifications validly empowered the officers concerned to initiate and adjudicate proceedings under the CGST Act. The Court also noted that the legal position regarding GST on BOT annuity projects had not attained finality in view of the pendency of proceedings arising from the Karnataka High Court’s decision.

The Court held that none of the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy, including lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice or infringement of fundamental rights, had been established so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act in accordance with the law.