Coercive GST recovery claim failed as contemporaneous records showed voluntary payment and no timely protest supported refund.

Allegations that GST dues were recovered under coercion were rejected where search records, panchnamas and statements showed voluntary discharge of the quantified liability and a request for temporary registration to make payment. The absence of any contemporaneous protest, complaint or representation undermined the later coercion claim, which was treated as an afterthought. Refund under section 54 was unavailable because the petitioner did not establish that the amount was not payable or was paid in excess. The Court also held that this disputed factual issue was not ordinarily fit for writ adjudication, so the refund rejection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established that the tax, interest and penalty were extracted under coercion so as to justify refund under section 54, and whether the rejection of the refund claim was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The search proceedings, panchnamas and recorded statements showed that the petitioner, who was operating without GST registration, voluntarily agreed to discharge the quantified liability and requested a temporary registration for payment. The Court found no contemporaneous complaint, protest or representation alleging threat or coercion during or immediately after the proceedings, and treated the later allegation as an afterthought. The refund claim under section 54 could succeed only if the amount was shown to be not payable or paid in excess, which was not established on the material recorded during the search. The Court also relied on the settled principle that a disputed factual controversy as to coercive recovery is not ordinarily amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The allegation of coercive recovery was disbelieved, and the rejection of the refund application was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned refund rejection remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim founded on alleged coercive recovery cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction where the contemporaneous record s voluntary payment and the allegation raises a disputed question of fact unsupported by timely protest or complaint.

---