https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794472 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. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 08:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794472 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. Case-Laws GST Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794472