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 arrears of sales tax could be recovered from a person who had resigned as director long before the recovery proceedings were initiated, when the company had not been wound up or liquidated.
Analysis: Liability of directors for company tax arrears under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act arises only within the conditions expressly contemplated by the statute. Section 19-B applies where the company is wound up and the person sought to be made liable was a director at the time of winding up. The analogous principle under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act is that director liability for unrecovered tax arises in the context of liquidation of a private company. As the petitioner had resigned from directorship years before the recovery action, and the company was not shown to have been wound up or liquidated, the statutory preconditions for fastening personal liability were absent.
Conclusion: The recovery proceedings against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and unsustainable, and the impugned demand notice was set aside in favour of the petitioner.