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 Tax Board was justified in allowing set-off at 2.5% on raw material purchased during the assessment year 1994-95 by applying the notification dated 6.3.1991, and thereby granting relief to the assessee.
Analysis: The assessment year in question was 1994-95. The operative notification dated 6.3.1991 exempted tax to the extent the rate exceeded 1.5% on iron and steel used as raw material in manufacture within the State, subject to the stated conditions. The record showed that the assessee had used the purchased raw material in manufacture within Rajasthan and the notification was in force for the relevant assessment year. The subsequent rescission dated 27.3.1995 did not affect the applicability of the earlier notification to the year under assessment. The Tax Board therefore applied the correct notification, and its finding was one of fact.
Conclusion: The Tax Board was justified in granting relief on the basis of the notification dated 6.3.1991, and the challenge to that finding failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the impugned order involved no substantial question of law and the Revenue's challenge to the Tax Board's factual finding was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification governing the relevant assessment year remains applicable for that year despite later rescission, and a correct factual application of such notification does not give rise to a question of law.