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 arrears of sales tax due from a transferor-firm could be recovered from the transferee beyond the value of the assets received by transfer, and whether coercive recovery under section 24(2)(b) could proceed without first serving a demand notice on the transferee.
Analysis: The proviso to section 27 limits recovery from a transferee to the value of the assets obtained by transfer. Any coercive step under section 24(2)(b) must therefore remain within that limit, and recovery against property not received by transfer would be unlawful. Since no demand notice had been served on the petitioner after the transfer, she had no proper opportunity to show what assets of the erstwhile firm had been transferred to her or why those assets should not be proceeded against. The recovery action was therefore not properly initiated.
Conclusion: The proceedings for recovery against the petitioner could not proceed in their present form and were liable to be interdicted until a proper demand notice was served and she was called upon to specify the transferred assets and show cause.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the department was restrained from continuing recovery proceedings until it first issued a demand notice to the transferee and followed the procedure required by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of tax arrears from a transferee is confined to the value of the assets transferred, and coercive recovery cannot validly proceed against a transferee without prior notice and opportunity to identify the transferred assets.