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 amended sales tax notification was ultra vires and discriminatory in granting a longer exemption period to food processing units in advanced districts while denying the same benefit to similar units in backward districts.
Analysis: The exemption scheme under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 classified districts into advanced and backward categories and fixed different periods of tax concession on that basis. The challenged amendment extended a longer benefit to industries located in advanced districts as a policy measure. A unit in a backward district could not claim parity merely because it carried on the same activity, since the statutory classification turned on district location and not on the nature of the industry alone. The differentiation was therefore founded on an intelligible basis and did not amount to hostile or invidious discrimination.
Conclusion: The notification was held to be valid and not ultra vires, and the challenge on the ground of discrimination failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Differential tax exemption based on a rational district-wise classification does not offend equality when the classification has an intelligible differentia and a nexus with the policy underlying the concession.