https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464354 Serial No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), read with Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and related notifications, could not validly fasten IGST on the impugned transaction because the issue was treated as governed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay HC held that the delegated levy, to the extent it sought to impose IGST on that transaction, could not survive constitutional scrutiny and was unconstitutional for that limited purpose. The petitions were disposed of with consequential refund directions where tax had been paid. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:32:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464354 Serial No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), read with Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and related notifications, could not validly fasten IGST on the impugned transaction because the issue was treated as governed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay HC held that the delegated levy, to the extent it sought to impose IGST on that transaction, could not survive constitutional scrutiny and was unconstitutional for that limited purpose. The petitions were disposed of with consequential refund directions where tax had been paid. Case-Laws GST Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464354