GST liability cannot be shifted by private contract absent reverse charge notification; statutory incidence remains on the supplier.

A private agreement cannot shift GST liability to the recipient unless a statutory reverse charge notification applies under the CGST Act. The Court held that, although parties may allocate tax burden inter se by contract, such stipulation does not alter the statutory incidence of tax payable to the State, which remains on the supplier in the absence of an applicable notification under Section 9. The challenge therefore failed, and the GST demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether GST liability could be shifted from the supplier to the recipient by agreement between the parties in the absence of any notification under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on the contractual stipulation that GST would be paid by the recipient and invoked the reverse charge mechanism. The Court found that no notification under Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was shown to apply to the transaction. It held that a private agreement could be enforced inter se between the parties, but it could not alter the statutory incidence of tax payable to the State, which remained on the supplier.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the GST demand against the petitioner was upheld.

---