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 notice proposing assessment for the earlier assessment years was barred by limitation on the footing that, in the absence of a completed best judgment assessment under section 10(1)(b), the case was one of escaped assessment attracting section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and whether the writ petition could be rejected as premature for failure to first respond before the assessing authority.
Analysis: The notice covered assessment years for which no best judgment assessment had been made before 7 April 1979. In such a situation, the Court applied the principle that non-filing of a proper return, or absence of assessment under section 10(1)(b), makes the turnover liable to be treated as escaped assessment, so that section 12 becomes mandatory. On that basis, the eight-year limitation under section 12(2) governed the earlier years, and the proposed assessment for those years had become time-barred. The objection that the writ petition was premature was rejected because the petition had already been entertained and heard on merits, and the petitioner could not be turned away at that stage on the ground of an unexhausted statutory remedy.
Conclusion: The notice was quashed insofar as it related to the time-barred earlier assessment years, while the assessments for the later years were left open to proceed in accordance with law.