https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750718 The dominant issue is whether the tax deposit was made under coercion and thus susceptible to setting aside in a writ under Article 226. The HC reasoned that as a corporate legal person it cannot be physically coerced; any coercion would concern officers and is a factual question. The petitioner's contemporaneous conduct (voluntary deposit, agreement to pay balance, acknowledgement of outstanding tax, failure to complain to authorities) undermined any claim of duress. Because disputed factual findings on coercion cannot be resolved in Article 226 proceedings, the writ petition is rejected. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750718 The dominant issue is whether the tax deposit was made under coercion and thus susceptible to setting aside in a writ under Article 226. The HC reasoned that as a corporate legal person it cannot be physically coerced; any coercion would concern officers and is a factual question. The petitioner's contemporaneous conduct (voluntary deposit, agreement to pay balance, acknowledgement of outstanding tax, failure to complain to authorities) undermined any claim of duress. Because disputed factual findings on coercion cannot be resolved in Article 226 proceedings, the writ petition is rejected. Case-Laws GST Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750718