Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC determined that payments made under CGST Act were coerced, not voluntary self-ascertainment under Section 74(5). Evidence showed statements were recorded and deposits made under duress, with implicit threats of arrest. The timing of payments - one made after summons issuance and another during Bengaluru appearance - indicated coercion. Court rejected appellant's argument that respondent's affidavit challenging statements was belated, noting one-week gap was not fatal. Finding the recovery contrary to law, HC upheld single judge's order directing refund with interest. The cumulative facts demonstrated clear pattern of threat and coercion, invalidating both recorded statements and subsequent payments. Appeal dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
