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 reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained when the alleged basis was only an excess number of employees found in survey, without any incriminating material showing additional purchases, sales, or likely increased production in an automatic plant.
Analysis: The original assessment had accepted the dealer's accounts after proper examination. The reassessment was founded on the fact that more employees were found during survey than those declared earlier. However, the plant was automatic, and neither the assessing authority nor the Tribunal explained how the additional employees could have led to higher production. No additional purchases of raw material or additional sales were found in the survey. In these circumstances, the inference of escaped turnover rested on speculation rather than on material showing that any turnover had in fact escaped assessment.
Conclusion: The reassessment under section 21 was not legally sustainable and was liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment for escaped turnover cannot be upheld on conjecture alone and must rest on material showing a rational nexus between the discovered facts and the alleged suppression of turnover.