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 interim order restraining collection of cess under Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 should be extended.
Analysis: The interim restraint was examined against the background of the statutory power to levy and collect cess and the existing judicial and administrative developments relating to such levy. The Court also applied the settled considerations governing interim orders against revenue, including the need to evaluate not merely prima facie case but also balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest. It was noted that the statutory scheme provided for refund if the petitioner ultimately succeeded, which reduced the need to continue the restraint order.
Conclusion: The interim order was not extended and the prayer for continuation of restraint on cess collection was declined.
Final Conclusion: The respondent authorities were left free to continue collection of cess pending the writ petition, with liberty to refund any amount found unlawfully collected if the petitioner ultimately succeeds.
Ratio Decidendi: Interim restraint against collection of revenue should not be continued merely on a prima facie case when the statutory scheme provides for refund and the balance of convenience and public interest do not justify interference.