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 petitioner was eligible to seek settlement under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Ordinance, 2008 when the original assessment was made prior to 1 April 2002 but the consequential demand order was passed later.
Analysis: Section 4 applies to arrears relating to assessments made prior to 1 April 2002. The original assessment in the case was made in 1994. Although the appellate order was later set aside in revision and the assessing officer passed a demand order on 1 April 2002, that demand was only consequential to the revisional order restoring the original assessment. The later demand order did not convert the assessment into one made after 1 April 2002. The clarification issued by the Commissioner also supported the view that where the original assessment was prior to 1 April 2002, later modification pursuant to appeal or revision would still fall within the scheme.
Conclusion: The petitioner was eligible to apply under Section 4, and the rejection of the application on the ground of ineligibility was unsustainable.