The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission heard a petition filed by Sprng Ujjvala Energy Pvt. Ltd. against Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited concerning the impact of changes in Goods and Services Tax on solar power projects. The petition, filed under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and specific provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement signed in April 2021, sought recognition of the GST increase on solar modules, equipment, and related services as a Change in Law event. The company argued that this change, introduced through a government notification dated 30 September 2021, directly affected the cost of setting up its solar power plant and should entitle it to relief as per the contractual terms.
The petitioner, represented by counsel, submitted that the respondent had not denied the GST change itself but had opposed granting relief. They emphasized that the Commission had already addressed a similar matter in a previous case involving another renewable energy company, which had recognized the GST change as a Change in Law event. To support their claim, the petitioner provided documents including invoices and a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, stating that the costs had been duly substantiated. They also informed the Commission that they had filed a rejoinder to the respondent’s earlier objections on 21 August 2025 and had resubmitted a corrected version of the CA certificate after the respondent claimed the earlier one was illegible.
On the other hand, the respondent, represented by counsel, argued that they had not received the rejoinder and sought time to examine and respond to it. They pointed out that in their earlier reply filed in September 2024, they had raised certain discrepancies in the petitioner’s submissions and wanted to verify if those had been addressed in the rejoinder. The petitioner countered this by saying the rejoinder had already been served but agreed to re-serve a copy and provide any additional documents. They also requested more time to submit further supporting documents.
The Commission, after hearing both sides, recorded the statements and directed the petitioner to file all relevant and additional documents within three weeks from the date of the hearing, with copies to be provided to the respondent. The respondent was allowed two weeks thereafter to file its reply. The Commission clarified that the next hearing date would be intimated separately. The order, signed by Members Mehul M. Gandhi and S. R. Pandey, was issued on 2 September 2025 in Gandhinagar.
This case highlights the continuing disputes in the renewable energy sector over cost adjustments arising from policy changes, particularly taxation, and the reliance on regulatory intervention to resolve contractual disagreements between developers and distribution utilities. It underscores the importance of clear documentation, compliance with procedural requirements, and timely communication between parties in such regulatory proceedings.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
