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 High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the Tribunal's interim order directing deposit of 30% of the disputed tax amount, and whether the condition of deposit required modification.
Analysis: The Tribunal had granted stay after assessing the prima facie merits of the second appeal and had exercised its discretion by imposing a deposit condition. Interference in supervisory jurisdiction with such a speaking interim order is unwarranted unless the order discloses error, illegality, irregularity, or impropriety. At the same time, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considered it appropriate, as a matter of equity, to reduce the deposit condition, while making it clear that the order would not operate as a precedent.
Conclusion: The original petition was not entertained on merits, but the interim condition was modified by reducing the deposit from 30% to 20% of the amount due.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's discretionary interim order was substantially upheld, subject to a limited equitable reduction in the deposit requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is ordinarily not invoked to disturb a reasoned discretionary interim order of a tribunal unless the order suffers from error, illegality, irregularity, or impropriety, though the Court may grant limited equitable modification in appropriate circumstances.