Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest and penalty were leviable on amounts of refund wrongly availed twice by the appellant by suppressing the earlier suo motu credit entry and thereby attracting the provisions governing erroneous refund, interest and mandatory penalty.
Analysis: The appellant had already taken refund of the amounts by making suo motu credit entries in the PLA, but later filed refund applications without disclosing that earlier availment and thereafter encashed the cheques issued on the second set of applications. The omission to disclose the earlier refund constituted suppression of material facts, and the conduct showed deliberate double availment of the same refund. On those established facts, the liability to repay the wrongly refunded amounts with interest arose under the provision governing interest on such amounts, and the conditions for imposition of penalty under the provision prescribing penalty for fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement were satisfied. In such a case, there was no scope to restrict the penalty below the amount determined, because the statutory penalty operated once the requisite ingredients were established.
Conclusion: Interest and penalty were rightly imposed, and the appellant's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where refund is obtained twice by concealment of the earlier refund and suppression of material facts, the amount is recoverable with interest and the mandatory penalty provision applies.