2024 (9) TMI 602 - HC - GST

Refund of amount deposited under coercion and protest - availment of inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT - It is the petitioner s case that the amount was deposited under coercion and it had no outstanding tax liability that was required to be discharged. This is disputed by the respondent and it is stated that the amount was deposited voluntarily. It is material to note that the deposits of tax were not made during the course of any raid or while the petitioner or any of his employees were in custody of the respondent. According to the petitioner, he was coerced to deposit the tax demanded under the threat that the registration would be cancelled. Clearly, the petitioner could have availed remedies at the material time in respect of such alleged threats. It is not considered necessary to conduct any enquiry whether the amount as deposited by the petitioner was under coercion or voluntarily. However, it is considered apposite to observe that in the event the petitioner claims that it has deposited the tax in excess of his liability, the petitioner is not remediless and can seek refund in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

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.