Seizure notice must state concrete reasons; later affidavit cannot cure missing basis for tax penalty.

Seizure of a consignment and the resulting penalty were held unsustainable where the seizure receipt and show-cause notice gave no factual basis for action. The Tribunal treated the notices as stereotyped forms because they did not record any specific ground such as under-weight or undervaluation, and held that the validity of a statutory order must be tested on the reasons contained in the order itself. Reasons first supplied later through an affidavit and argument papers were rejected as an impermissible supplementation of the original action. As the record did not disclose objective material showing an attempt to evade tax, the seizure and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the consignment and the consequential penalty were sustainable when the seizure receipt and show-cause notice did not disclose the factual basis for action and the later affidavit sought to supply fresh reasons.

Analysis: The petitioner had produced the transport documents, and the seizure receipt and penalty notices were found to be stereotyped forms which did not record any reason such as under-weight or undervaluation. The validity of a statutory order must be judged on the reasons stated in the order itself. Reasons first introduced through the affidavit-in-opposition and belated papers filed during arguments were treated as an impermissible attempt to supplement the original order. Fair procedure required communication of the basis of the action to the affected party, and seizure could stand only on objective consideration showing an attempt to evade tax. The materials placed before the Tribunal did not disclose such basis.

Conclusion: The seizure and the penalty were not sustainable and were set aside.

---