Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

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.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2001 (3) TMI 1078 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Commissioned Kurk Amins in UP entitled to equal pay as Revenue Dept, Supreme Court affirms The Supreme Court affirmed that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh are government servants ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Commissioned Kurk Amins in UP entitled to equal pay as Revenue Dept, Supreme Court affirms

                            The Supreme Court affirmed that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh are government servants holding civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. They are entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins in the Revenue Department. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that both sets of Kurk Amins perform similar duties under the same authority and control, justifying equal pay scales. The State's appeals were dismissed, and the factual findings remained unchallenged.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh for the realization of outstanding dues of cooperative societies can be considered employees of the State Government holding civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
                            2. Whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis are entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins appointed in the Revenue Department.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Status of Kurk Amins as Government Employees:
                            The primary issue was whether Kurk Amins appointed on a commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh for the realization of outstanding dues of cooperative societies can be treated as employees of the State Government holding civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

                            Background and Arguments:
                            The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, framed a scheme on 8.5.1978 for the appointment of Kurk Amins to recover dues of cooperative societies as land revenue. Initially, these Kurk Amins were salaried, but due to insufficient recovery to cover their salaries, they were later asked to work on a commission basis. Those who agreed were retained, while others were terminated, leading to multiple writ applications challenging these terminations.

                            The High Court had earlier ruled that Kurk Amins on salary basis were government servants holding civil posts, and this decision was not challenged by the State. The contention was whether Kurk Amins on commission basis could be treated similarly.

                            Supreme Court's Analysis:
                            The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including the cases of *State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta* and *Superintendent of Post Offices vs. P.K. Rajamma*, which established that the relationship of master and servant, the nature of duties, and the control exercised by the State are crucial factors in determining whether a person holds a civil post.

                            The Court noted that the High Court had considered all relevant factors, such as the appointing authority, the power to terminate, the nature of duties, and the control exercised by the State, and concluded that Kurk Amins on commission basis were indeed government servants holding civil posts. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding.

                            2. Entitlement to Pay Scale:
                            The second issue was whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis were entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins in the Revenue Department.

                            Background and Arguments:
                            Following the High Court's decision that Kurk Amins on salary basis were government servants, Chandra Prakash Pandey and others sought a direction for the State to pay them the regular scale of pay applicable to Kurk Amins of the Revenue Department. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, and the State's appeal was dismissed.

                            Supreme Court's Analysis:
                            The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that both sets of Kurk Amins (commission-based and salary-based) were appointed by the same authority, performed similar duties, and were subject to the same control and supervision. The Court emphasized that the High Court had thoroughly examined the facts and found that Kurk Amins on commission basis were performing the same public duties as their salaried counterparts, thereby justifying their entitlement to the same pay scale.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis are government servants holding civil posts and are entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins in the Revenue Department. The Court found no infirmity in the High Court's judgments and emphasized that the State had failed to challenge the factual findings effectively.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found