Recipient definition in CRS transactions raises IGST liability and jurisdiction questions, with maintainability kept open

A writ petition challenges IGST demand and penalty under the CGST Act on CRS transactions, arguing that the service was contracted directly by CRS companies and that the petitioner was neither the recipient nor the payer. The core issue is whether the petitioner falls within the statutory definition of recipient so as to be fastened with IGST liability, with a further question on the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy was not treated as decisive at this stage. Notice was issued, maintainability was kept open for the next date, and ad-interim relief was granted in the meantime.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, on the facts pleaded, falls within the definition of recipient so as to be fastened with IGST liability on the CRS transaction, and whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenges the confirmation of IGST demand and penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the footing that the CRS services were contracted directly by the CRS companies, while the petitioner asserts that it was neither the recipient nor the payer of the service. The Court found that the core controversy requires deeper consideration, and that the issue also raises a question relating to the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. For that reason, the existence of an appellate remedy was not treated as decisive at this stage.

Outcome: Notice issued, maintainability kept open for consideration on the next date, and ad-interim relief granted till then.

---