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 provisional attachments and distraint measures were validly made under section 17-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, when the assessing authority had not formed its own opinion and the prescribed prior approval procedure was not followed.
Analysis: Section 17-B permits provisional attachment only when, during pending assessment or reassessment proceedings, the assessing authority forms an opinion that attachment is necessary to protect revenue and then obtains the previous approval of the Commissioner by written order. The provision places the initial decision-making responsibility on the assessing authority itself. On the admitted facts, the attachment request originated from the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner's approval was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, and the impugned attachments were then carried out on that basis. The assessing authority did not independently form the requisite opinion or seek approval in the manner mandated by the statute. The record also showed that instructions restraining payment were issued even before the Commissioner's approval.
Conclusion: The provisional attachments were held to be in clear violation of section 17-B and were liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.