Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund granted twice, leading to the grant of refund again by suppressing the fact of suo moto availment of credit. The issue revolved around the levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, 1944, which requires the presence of mens rea. The court held that under Section 11AC, penalty is imposed when there is an intention to evade duty payment, such as through fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, the appellant's mens rea was established by their conduct of obtaining the refund twice while concealing the credit availment. The court found no errors or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.