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 Section 5(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, which enabled levy of lump sum tax on brick kiln owners on the basis of production capacity, was beyond the State's legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Analysis: Entry 54 of List II authorises State legislation only in respect of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. The impugned provision, read with the notification issued under it, shifted the tax incidence from actual sale to the capacity of the brick kiln and thereby detached the levy from any sale or purchase transaction. Since the levy was not founded on the taxable event contemplated by Entry 54, it could not be sustained as a sales tax measure. The provision was therefore outside the competence of the State Legislature.
Conclusion: Section 5(4) was held to be ultra vires Article 246 read with Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, and the demand raised under it was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the impugned levy could not be enforced against the petitioners, and the proceedings were finally allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A State sales tax levy must retain a real nexus with the sale or purchase of goods; a charge based on production capacity, unrelated to the taxable event of sale, is beyond legislative competence under Entry 54.