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 credit under Rule 57H could be denied on the ground that the assessee did not maintain records of inputs in process and whether the stock position of such inputs could be worked out from existing records.
Analysis: The appellate authority found merit in the contention that no statutory provision required separate maintenance of records for inputs in process. It accepted that the quantity of inputs in process could be worked out from the stock position as on the relevant date, together with subsequent receipts and consumption, on the basis of the records maintained for inputs. The figures furnished by the assessee showed that the claimed quantity was within the available stock, but verification of those figures with the relevant records was necessary before final determination.
Conclusion: The denial of credit was not sustained on the existing reasoning, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after verification of the records. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the rules do not require separate records of inputs in process, the quantum of such inputs may be determined from available stock and consumption records, and the issue should be verified afresh before denying credit.