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 petitioner was eligible to seek settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in respect of redemption fine arising from confiscation proceedings, and whether the designated committee rightly rejected the declaration under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019.
Analysis: The dispute had already travelled through adjudication and appellate proceedings before the Scheme came into force, and the matter was not one that remained open within the class of eligible legacy disputes contemplated by Section 125. The case was treated as distinguishable from the cited precedent, and the Court accepted the view that the declaration did not satisfy the statutory eligibility conditions for the Scheme. On that basis, the rejection by the designated committee was upheld.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not eligible for relief under the Scheme, and the rejection of the declaration was sustained.