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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the State of Gujarat had jurisdiction to levy and collect central sales tax on the assessee's subsequent sales, and to impose penalty under the linked sales tax provisions.
Analysis: The assessee was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act in both Gujarat and Maharashtra and had obtained the prescribed C forms in Maharashtra in connection with its inter-State purchases. The subsequent sales were effected while the goods were in movement and did not fall within section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, so the proviso to section 9(1) became applicable. That proviso directs levy and collection in the State from which the registered dealer obtained, or could have obtained, the prescribed form in connection with the purchase of the goods. On the admitted facts, the necessary forms had in fact been obtained from Maharashtra, and no valid objection to their use had been raised earlier. The Gujarat authorities therefore had no territorial authority under the proviso to assess the disputed turnover.
Conclusion: The levy and collection of tax by Gujarat on the disputed subsequent sales was without jurisdiction, and the penalty based on that levy was also unsustainable. The answer was in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.