Reading Time: 2 minutes
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi passed an order on August 1, 2025, in response to interim applications filed by Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited. The applications were part of ongoing appeals related to compensation claims under the ‘Change in Law’ clause in their power purchase agreements. The case dates back to 2019 when the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) had partly allowed and partly rejected claims made by renewable energy developers, including Renew, following the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws.
Initially, the developers had approached the CERC, arguing that the implementation of GST led to an increase in project costs and that this should be treated as a ‘Change in Law’ event under their power purchase agreements. On February 5, 2019, the CERC agreed that GST constituted a ‘Change in Law’ but did not allow claims related to operation and maintenance (O&M) costs or carrying costs. Dissatisfied, the developers filed appeals before the Tribunal on July 25, 2019.
Renew’s appeal also included a plea that expenses incurred after the commercial operation date (COD) should be covered, especially when the invoices were raised after COD for goods or services procured before that date. NTPC, one of the respondents, denied this claim, stating that such post-COD invoices were ineligible for compensation. Renew later filed a clarification petition with CERC on April 16, 2021, which again largely went against them. CERC ruled that only invoices raised before COD or within 30 days after COD for certain services would be considered.
The Tribunal, while reviewing the situation, referred to its earlier judgement in a similar case (Parampujya Solar Energy and Others vs CERC), where it held that developers were entitled to compensation for the entire period impacted by the ‘Change in Law’ event, including post-COD, and also for carrying costs. However, implementation of that order was put on hold by the Supreme Court pending further instructions.
The Tribunal also examined whether the amendment of appeals was permissible at this stage. The appellant sought to amend their appeals to include additional claims and facts arising after the initial filing. The Tribunal observed that although Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code governs amendment of pleadings, the appellate process under the Electricity Act must also allow for changes that serve the interest of justice. It noted that appeals before the Tribunal are akin to first appeals under the Civil Procedure Code and therefore a more liberal view on amendments should be considered, especially when new material facts come to light.
Based on judicial precedents and the specifics of this case, the Tribunal allowed the amendment applications filed by Renew Wind Energy. It directed that the revised appeals be taken on record, thereby permitting the developer to pursue their enhanced claims under the ‘Change in Law’ provision for GST-related cost impacts, including those arising after the commissioning of the project.
