https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791366 Section 52 TCS could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration for the underlying supplies, so the notice lacked jurisdiction on that basis. Section 17(2) could not sustain a reversal demand because the notice did not establish exempt supplies or any factual mixed use of inputs for taxable and exempt supplies, so that demand was unsustainable. Section 74(1) also could not be triggered without foundational averments of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, and a bona fide interpretative dispute was insufficient. The impugned show cause notice and consequential proceedings were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 11:23:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791366 Section 52 TCS could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration for the underlying supplies, so the notice lacked jurisdiction on that basis. Section 17(2) could not sustain a reversal demand because the notice did not establish exempt supplies or any factual mixed use of inputs for taxable and exempt supplies, so that demand was unsustainable. Section 74(1) also could not be triggered without foundational averments of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, and a bona fide interpretative dispute was insufficient. The impugned show cause notice and consequential proceedings were therefore set aside. Case-Laws GST Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791366