Natural justice and prejudice requirement defeat challenge to non-supply of seized documents in notice proceedings.

Non-supply of a preliminary verification report and photocopies of seized documents does not, by itself, vitiate a notice or proceeding where the statute is silent, because natural justice is ordinarily implied and material proposed to be used against a person should be disclosed. However, a breach of natural justice invalidates the proceeding only if the affected party pleads and proves prejudice. Here, the appellant showed only that the documents were needed for audit and routine business, but did not demonstrate any inability to answer the notice or any substantial prejudice from the alleged non-supply. The complaint therefore failed, and the notice and proceedings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-supply of the preliminary verification report and photocopies of the seized documents, in the absence of an express statutory provision, violated the principles of natural justice so as to vitiate the notice and proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that observance of natural justice is not excluded merely because the statute is silent, and that material proposed to be used against a person ordinarily must be disclosed. At the same time, a breach of natural justice does not automatically invalidate the proceeding; the affected party must plead and prove prejudice caused by the non-supply. On the pleadings and correspondence produced, the appellant showed only that the documents were needed for audit and day-to-day business, but did not establish any inability to reply to the notice or any substantial prejudice arising from the alleged non-supply.

Conclusion: The complaint of violation of natural justice failed for want of proved prejudice, and the impugned notice and proceedings were not liable to be interfered with.

---