I GUJARAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SIIRVICES TAX .r|fl'o*

Nilunnxrr D/5, RAJYA KAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD _ 380 OO9.

ADVANCE RULTNG(APPEAL) NO. GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL|202'|06 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advancc Ruling/SGST&CGST 120221 AR/07)

Date :2f.02.2025 Name and address of the M/s. Shell Energy India P Ltd., appellant Office No. 2008, The Address, Westgate D Block, Nr. YMCA Club, S G Highway, Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 051.

GSTIN of the appellant 24AAACH9I43CIZZ Jurisdiction Office Office of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, [Jnit-S, Range-2, Division-

1, Ahmedabad.

Advance Ruling No. and GIJJ/GAAR/[V2022126 dated I 1.5 .2022 Date Date of appeal t7 .06.2022 Date of Personal Hearing 8.1 .2024

1 Present for the appellant Shri Sujit Ghosh, Sr Advocate, Ms. Anshika Agarwal, Advocate &

Ms. Vandana Natrajan.

At the outset we would like to make it cle ar that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Services'fax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the'CGSTAct, 2017'and the 'GGST Act, 2017') are pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act, 2017 would also mean reference to the coffesponding similar provisions in the GGST Act,2017 .

2.

Thc prcscnt appcal is filed undcr Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017 by M/s. Shell Energy India P Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') against the Advance Ruling No.

GUJ/GAAR/R/2022126 dated 1 1.5 .2022.

J a Briefly, the facts are enumerated below for ease of \

0li

'\\i

a I'hc appellant, is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Shell Gas R V Nethcrlands;

that it owns & operatcs an LNGI regasification terminal at llazira, Surat and is registered with the Department;

a that in addition to the services of regasification of LNG, they also provide certain incidental & ancillary services related to [i] unloading of LNG; [ii] storage of LNG in cryogenic tank; [iii] delivery of RLNG2;

a that NG3, a highly flammable gas is condensed into liquid state at close to atmospheric pressurc by cooling down the gas to very low temperature (- 160oc) for transportation; that upon receipt of LNG at the destination port it is again converted into gaseous state;

a the vaporrzation is achieved either through ORV4 method or through SCV5 method;

that SCV is only a standby; that at all times, ORV is the primary and preferred rncchanism lor rcgasilication of NG;

a that in terms of the agreement, the regasification charges are computed by multiplying the actual quantity of RLNG delivered with regasification tarift a that during the process of such regasification there is a loss of gas, which is termed as SIIG6 which is a loss during regasification & is known as such in the oil and gas industry; that thc StlG perccntage is fixed at 0.660/o ol thc actual gas discharged quantity of I.NG by an LNG carrier in terms of clause 6.6 ol'the Agreement.

3.1 The appellant is of the view that they are not liable to pay GST on such SIJG, which they term as a process loss. I-Iowever, presently as abundant caution they are issuing a separate invoice mentioning the value of SLIG and the GST on the same is discharged consequent to being collected from the appellant.

4.

In view of the Ibregoing facts, the appellant had sought Advance Ruling on the following question, viz:

Whether the value attributable to SUG stipulated in the agreement between the applicant and customers is subject to levy oJ'GST and therefore, liable to be included in the consideration for re-gasification services determined as per section l5 of the CGST'Act?

5. Consequent to hearing the applicant, the Gr.rj arat Authority for Advance I{uling [GAAR], recorded the following findings viz a the issue is whether SUG value invoiced by M/s. Shell on its customer is leviable to GST;

a the customers of the appellant are not paying