Section 11(5) notices and writ interference: no jurisdictional bar from borrowing limitation, with appellate remedies available.

Section 11(5) applies to a dealer liable to register who failed to apply, while section 11A concerns a different situation. Because section 11(5) contains no express limitation period, notices issued under that provision were not shown to be without jurisdiction merely by invoking section 11A by analogy. The availability of appeal and tribunal review also weighed against writ interference on a disputed limitation question. On that reasoning, the notices were not liable to be struck down in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 11(5) could be quashed as time-barred by importing the limitation in section 11A, and whether the availability of the statutory appellate machinery barred interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 11(5) applies to a dealer liable to be registered but who has failed to apply for registration, whereas section 11A deals with a different situation. Section 11(5) does not itself prescribe any period of limitation. The absence of an express limitation in section 11(5) meant that, even if a limitation argument could be advanced by borrowing section 11A, the issuing authority could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction merely on that account. The statutory scheme also provided ordinary remedies by way of appeal and tribunal review, making it inappropriate to invoke writ interference on a disputed question of limitation.

Conclusion: The notices were not liable to be struck down for want of jurisdiction in writ proceedings, and the application was dismissed.

---