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 penalty under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was validly imposed for purchasing paddy at concessional rate or without tax as a recognition certificate holder and diverting it otherwise than for manufacture of rice; and whether the notifications relied upon protected the applicant from penalty.
Analysis: A recognition certificate holder purchasing raw material under section 4B is bound to use it only for the notified goods for which the concession was granted. The finding recorded was that the applicant purchased paddy against form IIIB but did not use it in the manufacture of rice and instead sold it to other rice millers. The later notification dated 28 February 1994 was held inapplicable because it concerned a dealer not holding a recognition certificate, and the earlier notification stood superseded by Notification No. 4519 dated 29 August 1987. On the admitted facts, the statutory condition attached to the concession was violated, attracting the penal provision.
Conclusion: The levy of penalty was upheld and the challenge to the penalty failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Raw material purchased at concessional rate or without tax by a recognition certificate holder under section 4B must be utilised only for the notified purpose, and diversion of such material for any other use renders the dealer liable to penalty under section 4B(5).