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 50% of capital cost collected upfront towards water supply infrastructure from allottee-lessees was liable to service tax as a taxable service, or whether it fell within the exemption for one-time upfront amounts under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis: The amount was found to be an upfront fee collected for setting up water supply infrastructure for industrial plots leased for 99 years. The legal framework under Section 104 exempts service tax on one-time upfront amounts, by whatever name called, received by a State Government industrial development corporation or undertaking in respect of long-term leases of thirty years or more for industrial plots. The demand on the same component had already been dropped for an earlier period on the same reasoning, and that decision had not been shown to have been challenged. In view of that binding departmental determination, the contrary demand for the present period could not be sustained. As the tax demand failed, the connected demand for interest and penalty also did not survive.
Conclusion: The 50% water supply capital cost was held to be exempt as a one-time upfront amount under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the service tax demand, interest and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.