https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770634 GST liability under the contract could not be avoided by seeking protection against demand or deduction from the first running account bill, because the contract was not shown to be exempt and tax liability arose under the statutory time-of-supply rules. The petitioner remained responsible for filing returns, and the contractual price and bill of quantity did not by themselves displace the GST obligation. At the same time, where GST formed part of the invoices, the Municipality could not avoid its own liability in relation to that tax. Whether the agreement was a fixed-rate contract and how the tax component was to be built into payment terms was left to the parties under the contract. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 May 2025 07:48:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770634 GST liability under the contract could not be avoided by seeking protection against demand or deduction from the first running account bill, because the contract was not shown to be exempt and tax liability arose under the statutory time-of-supply rules. The petitioner remained responsible for filing returns, and the contractual price and bill of quantity did not by themselves displace the GST obligation. At the same time, where GST formed part of the invoices, the Municipality could not avoid its own liability in relation to that tax. Whether the agreement was a fixed-rate contract and how the tax component was to be built into payment terms was left to the parties under the contract. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770634