9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd protest. 2. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner had received the summons dated 04.11.2023 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) and called upon the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer on 06.11.2023 at 11:15 AM. It stated that since the petitioner was hospitalised a few days ago due to cardiovascular diseases and had undergone angioplasty and stenting, he could not appear before the concerned officer on 06.11.2023. However, the authorised signatory of the petitioner had attended the office of respondent no. 2 on said date. It is alleged that he was detained till 10:00 PM. The petitioner states that it is the respondent's allegation that the petitioner had avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the coercion, and on 29.11.2023 deposited a sum of Rs.33,41,441/- under protest. The petitioner also sent an email dated 02.12.2023 confirming that it deposited the said amount under protest and would deposit the balance amount also, under protest, within a period of one month. 6. The petitioner alleges that he continued to receive telephonic threats and demands by the officers for depositing the balance amount. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.54,73,705/- under protest on 29.01.2024. 7. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 sent a letter dated 02.02.2024 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the duty liability along with applicable interest and penalty at the earliest. The contents of the said letter are reproduced below:- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 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. 11. We do not consider it necessary to conduct any enquiry whether the amount as deposited by the petitioner was under coercion or voluntarily. However, we consider it 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. 12. Needless to state if any such application is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 13. The petition is disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
