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 the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to resume and complete assessment proceedings during the pendency of a reference under section 23 of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and whether the assessment made during that period was liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The pendency of a reference under section 23 does not, by itself, place the order under challenge in abeyance or operate as a stay of further proceedings. Section 23(7) expressly indicates that the tax ordered to be paid remains payable notwithstanding an application under section 23(1) or any reference made in consequence thereof. On that statutory scheme, the order of remand continued to operate, and the Sales Tax Officer could lawfully recommence assessment proceedings in accordance with the Commissioner's directions. Although the Court found that judicial propriety required the authorities to await the decision on the reference, that consideration did not deprive the officer of jurisdiction to act.
Conclusion: The assessment was not without jurisdiction, and the challenge to it failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Unless the statute expressly provides otherwise, the filing or pendency of a reference does not suspend the operation of the order under reference, and proceedings taken under that operative order remain valid if the authority otherwise has jurisdiction.