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 entitled to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and obtain issuance of Form 4 notwithstanding that the tax payment was made after summons had been issued and the dispute had already been subjected to enquiry or investigation.
Analysis: Relief under the Scheme was governed by the eligibility and exclusion provisions in Sections 124 and 125 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. Section 125(1)(f) excluded a person making a voluntary disclosure after being subjected to enquiry or investigation or audit, and Section 124 contemplated relief only in accordance with the quantified tax dues and the statutory deductions. Since summons had been issued before payment was made, the claim fell within the statutory bar. The Court also noted that the mere filing of an application or issuance of a form under the Scheme could not override the statutory ineligibility created by Section 125(1)(f).
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme or to a direction for issuance of Form 4, and the challenge to the demand and consequential order failed.