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 an order passed under section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could stand when no opportunity of hearing was granted under section 75(4) of that Act, notwithstanding the absence of a written request for personal hearing.
Analysis: Section 75(4) was held to apply to assessment proceedings under section 73. The provision was read as mandating a hearing not only when a written request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, but also where an adverse decision is contemplated. Since the impugned order proceeded on alleged suppression of transactions and imposed penalty, it was an adverse decision. The absence of a written request for hearing did not dispense with the statutory obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable for breach of section 75(4) and was set aside, with a direction to redo the matter de novo after granting opportunity of hearing.