Machinery notice under sales tax law not quashable for sufficiency of information alone, especially when challenged belatedly.

Section 11(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act operates as a machinery provision triggered when the Assessing Authority, on information received, forms the opinion that a dealer liable to tax has not applied for registration. The notices recited such information and therefore could not be quashed in writ jurisdiction merely by challenging the sufficiency of that material. They were only initiating notices and did not finally determine liability, so they were not directly assailable as adverse orders. The challenge was also treated as highly belated, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 11(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be quashed on the ground that the Assessing Authority had no information in its possession when the notices were issued, and whether the writ petition challenging the notices was barred by laches and not maintainable against the notices themselves.

Analysis: Section 11(6) is a machinery provision enabling the Assessing Authority to proceed where, on information received, it is satisfied that a dealer liable to tax has failed to apply for registration. The notices themselves recited that such information had come into possession and that the petitioner had wilfully failed to register. The Court held that the authority's conscious formation of opinion on the basis of information was sufficient to set the statutory machinery in motion and that the sufficiency of that information was not open to challenge in writ proceedings. The Court further held that the petitioner could not directly assail the notices as adverse orders, since they merely initiated proceedings and did not finally determine liability; the grievance would arise only after an adverse assessment order. The challenge was also found to be highly belated.

Conclusion: The notices were not liable to be quashed, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notices under the sales tax statute was rejected, and the petitioner obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice issued under a machinery provision based on the Assessing Authority's formation of opinion from information received is not quashable in writ jurisdiction on a mere attack to the sufficiency of that information, and a challenge to such notices may be defeated when brought belatedly.

---