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 a notice issued under section 10(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 could validly cover a period for which no return had been filed and no assessment made, and whether such a composite notice including years beyond the eight-year limitation was sustainable.
Analysis: A notice under section 10(2) could be issued only where a return had been filed under section 7(1). Where no return was filed and no assessment had been made, the turnover was treated as having escaped assessment, attracting section 12(1). Section 12(2) barred issuance of notice under section 12(1) after eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Court held that escaped assessment includes cases where no assessment proceedings were initiated at all, and therefore the limitation under section 12(2) applied. Since the notice covered both time-barred years and years within limitation, it could not stand as a composite notice.
Conclusion: The composite notice was invalid and was quashed. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee, though liberty was left to the assessing authority to issue a fresh notice for periods within limitation.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the assessment notice could not lawfully include periods beyond the statutory limitation for escaped turnover.
Ratio Decidendi: Where no return has been filed and no assessment has been made, the case is one of escaped assessment governed by the limitation for escaped turnover notices, and a composite notice covering both time-barred and permissible periods is invalid.