Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

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.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (2) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akh per month for the machine working a minimum of 26 days or 260 hours in a month and including the wages of the operator and other costs. The company also agreed to pay service tax at the rate of 10.3 per cent on the hire charges. The petitioner has relied on the invoices raised on the company during the period that the vibratory hammer was used by the company in course of a project in Delhi. Detailed sheets are appended to the invoices, indicating the working hours of the machine and it does not appear that the company raised any objection to the invoices or questioned the particulars in support thereof. By a letter of January 11, 2011, the petitioning-creditor demanded a payment of Rs. 21,11,937/- as outstanding from the company on a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ested by the company. The company's next letter was issued on July 20, 2011 when it repeated that the claim had been settled and pointed out that the cheque for Rs. 4 lakh had been cleared. The statutory notice of December 27, 2011 followed from the petitioner and the company replied to the same on January 19, 2012. The company does not say that its affidavit points out any discrepancy in the invoices raised by the petitioner. The company's stand in the affidavit is the same as indicated in its reply to the statutory notice : "That the entire claim was settled for lesser sum and, upon the petitioner receiving the payment of Rs. 4 lakh, no further sum remains due." The company has not relied on any material or even a let....