<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Taxpayer&#039;s CGST Payments Made Under Duress and Threats of Arrest Invalid Under Section 74(5)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85505</link>
    <description>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&#039;s argument that respondent&#039;s affidavit challenging statements was belated, noting one-week gap was not fatal. Finding the recovery contrary to law, HC upheld single judge&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Taxpayer&#039;s CGST Payments Made Under Duress and Threats of Arrest Invalid Under Section 74(5)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85505</link>
      <description>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&#039;s argument that respondent&#039;s affidavit challenging statements was belated, noting one-week gap was not fatal. Finding the recovery contrary to law, HC upheld single judge&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>