Statutory safeguards in tax notices cannot be bypassed by adding extra conditions or denying hearing rights.

A taxing authority cannot add procedural or substantive conditions beyond those prescribed by the Act and Rules. A Form VI-A notice for provisional assessment was invalid because it stated that no further opportunity would be given, although Rule 28-B required a reasonable opportunity of being heard before best-judgment assessment. A Form VI-B notice was also unsustainable because the alleged way-bill defect was only the absence of an undertaking not required by Section 16-A, Rule 94 or Form XXXII. Notices or coercive action issued contrary to the statutory scheme are ultra vires and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notices in Form VI-A issued for provisional assessment of a casual dealer were valid when they stated that no further opportunity would be given, despite Rule 28-B requiring an opportunity of being heard before best-judgment assessment. (ii) Whether the notices in Form VI-B issued on the footing that the way bills were defective were sustainable when the only alleged defect was the absence of an undertaking not required by the statute or the prescribed form.

Issue (i): Whether the notices in Form VI-A issued for provisional assessment of a casual dealer were valid when they stated that no further opportunity would be given, despite Rule 28-B requiring an opportunity of being heard before best-judgment assessment.

Analysis: Rule 28-B contemplated a notice to furnish a return within the prescribed time, but where the return was not filed or appeared incorrect or incomplete, the authority was required to assess after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned notice, however, declared that on failure to comply the assessment would be completed to the best of judgment without any further reference to the assessee. That formulation was directly inconsistent with the procedural safeguard built into the rule. A taxing provision and the procedure prescribed under it had to be applied strictly, and a notice contrary to the rule could not stand.

Conclusion: The notices in Form VI-A were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices in Form VI-B issued on the footing that the way bills were defective were sustainable when the only alleged defect was the absence of an undertaking not required by the statute or the prescribed form.

Analysis: Section 16-A, Rule 94 and Form XXXII did not require any undertaking as part of a valid way bill. The department did not contend that the way bills were otherwise incomplete or inaccurate. Since the statutory scheme authorised seizure and confiscation only where the prescribed requirements were not met, the officer could not enlarge those requirements by insisting on an additional undertaking. Action taken beyond the statutory conditions amounted to excess of power and could not justify the notices in Form VI-B.

Conclusion: The notices in Form VI-B were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and all the impugned notices were set aside as contrary to the governing statute and rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing authority cannot impose conditions or deny statutory safeguards beyond those expressly provided by the Act and the Rules, and any notice or coercive action inconsistent with the prescribed procedure is ultra vires.

---