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, in suo motu revision proceedings under section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, the Commissioner could examine questions beyond the specific point on which revision was initiated and the assessee could be precluded from raising other objections decided against it by the appellate authority.
Analysis: Section 21(1) empowers the Commissioner, on calling for the record, to satisfy himself about the legality or propriety of the proceedings or order of the subordinate authority and to pass such order as he thinks fit. The width of this power is not confined to the particular ground on which the revisional proceedings were first set in motion. If the record discloses other questions touching legality or propriety, those questions may also be examined, whether they favour the revenue or the assessee. The revisional authority was therefore not justified in preventing the assessee from raising the other points decided against it by the appellate authority. The construction adopted is reinforced by the principle that suo motu revisional power is of wide amplitude.
Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.