Quasi-criminal penalty notices must state the exact charge; vague allegations cannot sustain penalty despite conduct amounting to obstruction.

The expression "obstructs or prevents" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was construed broadly to include not only physical resistance but also conduct that keeps books, documents or accounts out of an authorised officer's reach for enquiry, and such conduct falls within the statutory mischief. Penalty proceedings under section 15-A are quasi-criminal, so the notice must specifically disclose the exact allegation to be met and give a reasonable opportunity of defence. A vague notice referring only to lack of co-operation at survey was treated as insufficient because it did not clearly allege obstruction or prevention. The result was that, despite the substantive conduct falling within the provision, the penalty could not be sustained for want of proper notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dealer's conduct in causing the copy books to be taken away amounted to obstruction or prevention of an officer performing functions under the Act; (ii) Whether the penalty order was sustainable when the notice did not specifically disclose the accusation of obstruction or prevention.

Issue (i): Whether the dealer's conduct in causing the copy books to be taken away amounted to obstruction or prevention of an officer performing functions under the Act.

Analysis: The expression "obstructs or prevents" in section 15-A(1)(j) was construed in the context of the objects of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the powers of an authorised officer under section 13. Obstruction was held not to be confined to physical resistance; it also includes conduct that disables the officer from using books, documents or accounts necessary for enquiry into tax liability. Where the dealer's action renders relevant material out of the officer's reach for scrutiny, the statutory requirement is satisfied.

Conclusion: The dealer's conduct did amount to obstruction or prevention within section 15-A(1)(j), and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty order was sustainable when the notice did not specifically disclose the accusation of obstruction or prevention.

Analysis: Proceedings for penalty under section 15-A are quasi-criminal in character, and section 15-A(3) requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Such opportunity is effective only if the person proceeded against is told with specificity the act or omission alleged against him. A vague notice stating only that proper co-operation was not given at the time of survey did not communicate the specific charge of obstruction or prevention, and therefore did not enable an effective defence.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable for want of a proper notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the dealer's conduct fell within the statutory concept of obstruction or prevention, the penalty could not be sustained because the notice failed to specify the real accusation, so the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In penalty proceedings that are quasi-criminal in nature, a notice must specifically and effectively disclose the exact charge to be met; absent such disclosure, the penalty order cannot stand even if the conduct complained of otherwise falls within the statutory mischief.

---