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 impugned order demanding duty drawback, interest, and penalty could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and the respondent directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation in view of the admitted proof of export realisation.
Analysis: The demand was founded solely on the alleged failure to produce proof of realisation of export proceeds within time. The petitioner later produced bank certificates showing realisation within the stipulated period, and the respondent, in the counter affidavit, admitted on verification with the bank that the certificates were genuine and that the export obligation had been fulfilled. In these circumstances, directing the petitioner to pursue an appeal would have been an empty formality, because the factual basis of the impugned order stood contradicted by the respondent's own subsequent admission. The appropriate course was therefore to require the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2014 and pass orders on the basis of the verified materials.
Conclusion: The matter was not decided on the validity of the drawback demand itself, but the respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.