2024 (3) TMI 1215 - HC - GST

Company fails to prove coercion in Rs 2.5 crore tax deposit refund case under Article 226

Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. Versus Assistant Additional Director General of GST Investigation, Zonal Unit, Mumbai & Ors.

The Bombay HC rejected a company's petition seeking refund of Rs. 2,50,00,000 deposited as tax, claiming departmental coercion. The court found the ... Seeking refund of amount deposited - department coerced to deposit the tax amounts - whether it is genuinely a coercion or it was a voluntary deposit - HELD THAT:- At the outset, it needs to be noted that the petitioner is a legal person, it is described to be a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. As a legal person, the petitioner certainly cannot be physically coerced. The question is which of the representatives of the petitioner or its officers who were incharge of the day to day affairs of the petitioner, whether were coerced into such act. This is certainly a question of fact. It appears that not only the petitioner decided to voluntarily deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, but also, agreed that the “balance tax payment scheduled” would be made within 10 days. It also appears that the search and seizure operations revealed that an amount of more than Rs. 5 crores was due and payable towards the outstanding tax which was very well realized by the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner in the present facts, in regard to any coercion or allegation of any criminal act against the respondent cannot be accepted, not only on account of the petitioner’s letter dated 13 October 2022, addressed by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, but also on the petitioner’s own conduct which does not inspire any confidence for the writ Court to accept such contention. In our opinion, in reality or genuinely if the petitioner was to be coerced, as a prudent legal person would resort, the petitioner could have made complaints and/or representation on such actions of the officers, which in law can certainly be regarded as highhanded and illegal. However, the petitioner did not even whisper anything of such kind, in the several letters addressed to the authorities including in answering the summons, to say that such amount was recovered by the department under coercion, much less to raise the same before the appropriate police authorities. Hence, a case of such nature being directly made out in the writ petition de hors any material to that effect would not give any impetus to the petitioner’s case of any coercion by the department. In this view of the matter, such factual dispute as to whether any coercive methods were adopted by the respondents and that such amounts were deposited under duress and coercion certainly cannot be conclusively ascertained and/or gone into in the proceedings of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, it appears that several summonses were issued to the petitioner and that the investigation is in progress, it therefore, appears that the show cause notice, is yet not issued. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner by approaching this Court, for the first time, has made a grievance of a coercive recovery, which in our opinion, cannot be accepted. We may also observe that when an assessee comes before the Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too making a serious grievance that the department had coerced the assessee to deposit the tax amounts, certainly as to whether it is genuinely a coercion or whether it was a voluntary deposit, as seen in the present case, is purely a disputed question of fact. Such question cannot be gone into and appreciated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a result of the discussion, in our opinion, the petition is thoroughly misconceived. It is accordingly, rejected. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are coercion in depositing a certain amount by the petitioner, legality of the actions of the respondents, and the applicability of previous court decisions in similar cases.Coercion in Deposit:The petitioner claimed to have been coerced into depositing an amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- by the respondents. However, the court found that the petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount as evidenced by a letter dated 13 October 2022. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise any complaints or representations regarding coercion, and the actions of the petitioner did not support the claim of coercion. The court emphasized that the petitioner, being a legal person, could have taken appropriate legal actions if coercion was involved.Legality of Respondents' Actions:The court highlighted that the petitioner, a legal entity, cannot be physically coerced, and any alleged coercion would pertain to its representatives or officers. The court found that the petitioner's conduct, including voluntarily depositing the amount and acknowledging outstanding tax liabilities, did not support the claim of coercion. The court emphasized that in cases where substantial taxes are due, voluntary deposits by the assessee to avoid legal proceedings are not uncommon in tax jurisprudence. The court also noted that no show cause notice had been issued at the time of the petition, and the investigation was ongoing.Applicability of Previous Court Decisions:The court discussed the applicability of previous court decisions in similar cases, such as the Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court judgments. The court distinguished the facts of the present case from those in the previous decisions, emphasizing the unique circumstances and evidence presented. The court concluded that the previous judgments were not applicable to the current proceedings due to differences in facts and legal positions. The court reiterated that the question of coercion in depositing tax amounts is a disputed question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.Conclusion:In conclusion, the court found the petition to be misconceived and rejected it, stating that no costs were awarded. The court emphasized that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot convert into civil suit proceedings requiring evidence appreciation. The court underscored the need for clear and compelling evidence to support claims of coercion in tax deposits, which was lacking in the present case.