Demand notice validity depends on clear liability and statutory payment time; later correspondence may be only a reminder.

A demand notice under sales tax law is valid if it is construed reasonably and purposively, communicates a definite and enforceable tax liability, and allows the statutory time for payment, even where a writ petition challenging the assessment is pending. The pendency of the writ did not make the assessed liability uncertain or invalidate the demand. A later letter sent after dismissal of the writ petition, which was not in the prescribed form and did not itself grant the statutory payment period, operated only as a reminder and not as a fresh notice of demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice of demand issued along with the assessment order during the pendency of the writ petition was a valid notice of demand; and (ii) whether the letter dated 14/15 July 1961 sent after dismissal of the writ petition was merely a reminder.

Issue (i): whether the notice of demand issued along with the assessment order during the pendency of the writ petition was a valid notice of demand.

Analysis: The assessed tax remained a definite and enforceable liability notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition. The challenge to the rate of tax did not destroy the assessment order or make the demand uncertain. In construing the notice, the Court applied a practical and purposive approach, holding that a demand notice should be read so as to give effect to it if its meaning is reasonably clear. The notice required payment in accordance with the order of the Court and, read fairly, allowed sufficient time for payment under the statute.

Conclusion: The notice of demand was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the letter dated 14/15 July 1961 sent after dismissal of the writ petition was merely a reminder.

Analysis: The letter was not in the prescribed form of a demand notice and did not itself grant the statutory minimum time for payment. It functioned only as an intimation to pay the outstanding amount after the writ petition had failed. It did not create a fresh notice of demand under the Act and the Rules.

Conclusion: The letter was only a reminder and not a notice of demand.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the department, with the demand notice upheld and the later letter treated as a reminder only.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice under the sales tax law is valid if, when construed reasonably and purposively, it communicates a definite liability and grants the statutory time for payment, even though later correspondence may merely remind the assessee to comply.

---