9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Petitioner Through: Ms Stuti Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit a response to the allegations. He submits, on instructions, the allegation that the authorised signatory of the petitioner was detained till 10:00 PM is baseless and an afterthought. 4. The petitioner claims that he deposited a sum of ₹13,72,398/- out of ₹88,21,105/- which was orally demanded by the respondent, under protest. After the said deposit was made, the respondent once again issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for making further enquiries and called upon the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer on 28.11.2023 along with the documents. The petitioner claims that, pursuant to the said summons, the petitioner had submitted all documents. This fact is also disputed by the learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tection of 1.04 Crore (so far), you have deposited 1.01 crore, as on date. 3. It is therefore, requested that pending duty liability alongwith applicable interest penalty, may be deposited at the earliest. 4. This issues with the approval of Joint Commissioner (Anti Evasion). (Deepak Sharma) Superintendent Anti Evasion, Gr-4 CGST Delhi South Commissionerate 8. Mr Ramchandran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to point out any statutory provision which requires issuance of such letters to tax payers. He submits that the letter was sent only because the authorised signatory of the petitioner had expressed his willingness to pay the tax liability, which was detected. 9. As noted above, it is the petitioner s case that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
