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 municipal authority could validly act under Section 244 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 to restrict the sale of condemned flour on the footing that it appeared to be intended for human consumption, and whether liability for damages therefore arose.
Analysis: Section 244 had to be read with Section 243 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The statutory phrase that an article of food or drink "appears to be intended for the consumption of man" was held not to turn on the inspecting officer's subjective satisfaction. The relevant enquiry was whether, on objective facts and circumstances, the seller intended to sell the article for human consumption. The section was also not read as extending to indirect sale for human consumption or to a sale for animal consumption. Since the evidence showed that the appellants had displayed notices that the flour was unfit for human consumption and had not been shown to be selling it as human food, the statutory condition for action under Section 244 was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The orders passed under Section 244 were invalid, the respondents were liable for loss caused by their action, and the appellant succeeded on the question of liability.