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 penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was leviable for collection of excess sales tax when both the assessee and the assessing authority proceeded on a common mistaken basis as to the taxable rate.
Analysis: The assessee had collected tax at 30 per cent on the footing that the goods fell under item 135 of the First Schedule, and the assessing authority had also accepted that basis in assessment. The correct rate was settled only later by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. On these facts, the excess collection was not attributable to the assessee alone but arose from a mutual mistake between the assessee and the assessing authority. In such circumstances, the statutory penalty provision could not properly be invoked.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 22(2) was not leviable, and the challenge by the Revenue failed.