2026 (7) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,. For the Respondent: Mr YR Mishra a/w Mr Abhishek R Mishra. PC:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition assails the Order dated 4th February 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex. Mumbai Central, whereby the demand of IGST of Rs. 24,41,60,160/- was confirmed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, imposing equal amount of penalty along with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvices Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT' for short) in the case of British Airways Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (ADJN), Delhi 2014 (36) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Del.); as well as decision in the case of Singapore Airlines Vs. Commissioner Service Tax, Mumbai-I, dated 26 September 2022 to submit that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the IGST as it is not the recipient of services. The learn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nature and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Petition on the plea of maintainability of the same. 7. After hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for both sides, we are of the view that the core issue that arises for determination in this case is as to whether, the Petitioner Company would come within the definition of "Recipient", for being saddled with the liability of the IGST le....