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 a document marked in evidence without objection can still be impounded for deficit stamp duty and whether the applicant can thereafter seek permission to pay the deficit duty and penalty.
Analysis: The application concerned an original transfer deed that had already been admitted and marked in evidence without objection. The governing principle under the Stamp Act is that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, its admission cannot be questioned later on the ground of insufficient stamping. At the same time, the absence of objection does not erase the court's independent duty under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act to examine whether an instrument is duly stamped and, if not, to impound it. The court therefore distinguished between the finality of admission in evidence and the separate statutory power and duty to impound an insufficiently stamped instrument.
Conclusion: The applicant could not reopen the admissibility objection or seek permission to cure the defect after the document had been marked without objection, but the court was still entitled to impound the document for action under the Stamp Act.
Final Conclusion: The application failed, while the document was directed to be dealt with under the statutory impounding mechanism.
Ratio Decidendi: Admission of a document in evidence without objection bars a later challenge to its admissibility on stamping grounds, but it does not prevent the court from exercising its statutory duty to impound an insufficiently stamped instrument.