https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766550 Reverse charge under the IGST framework cannot be used to substitute a taxable person different from the recipient contemplated by Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals, the Madras HC treated the GST challenge as covered by binding precedent, held that the notification could not alter the statutorily prescribed recipient-liability structure, and allowed the writ petition, with the impugned order not surviving. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766550 Reverse charge under the IGST framework cannot be used to substitute a taxable person different from the recipient contemplated by Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals, the Madras HC treated the GST challenge as covered by binding precedent, held that the notification could not alter the statutorily prescribed recipient-liability structure, and allowed the writ petition, with the impugned order not surviving. Case-Laws GST Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766550