TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Deposited Funds Not Under Coercion: Petitioner Advised to Pursue Tax Refund Through Established Legal Procedures and Remedies</h1> <h3>Sh. Trilok Chand Sharma Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> Sh. Trilok Chand Sharma Versus Union Of India & Anr. - 2024:DHC:6799 Issues:Petitioner's claim for a refund of deposited amount under coercion and protest.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to refund an amount claimed to be deposited under coercion and protest. The petitioner received a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner's authorized signatory attended the office of the respondent, but the petitioner claims he was detained till late hours. The respondent disputes this claim and states that the authorized representative sought time to respond to the allegations. The petitioner deposited a sum of money under protest, but the respondent issued further summons for more inquiries, alleging that not all relevant documents were submitted by the petitioner.The petitioner alleges succumbing to coercion and deposited additional amounts under protest due to telephonic threats and demands by the officers. The respondent sent a letter requesting payment of pending duty liability along with interest and penalty. The respondent's counsel could not point out any statutory provision for such letters, stating it was sent based on the petitioner's willingness to pay. The petitioner claims the amount was deposited under coercion, while the respondent argues it was voluntary.The court observed that the deposits were not made during a raid or while the petitioner was in custody, and the petitioner could have sought remedies against alleged threats. The court did not delve into whether the deposits were made under coercion but noted that if the petitioner believes the tax was paid in excess, they can seek a refund as per the law. The court disposed of the petition with this observation, stating that any refund application would be considered according to the law.
TaxTMI 