Mandatory contents of cess demand notices must be stated clearly or the demand is unenforceable and liable to be quashed

A demand notice under the Produce Cess Act was held unenforceable because it omitted the particulars mandated by Rule 5 of the Produce Cess Rules. The prescribed notice had to state separately the quantity of produce consumed or oils extracted, the cess assessed, the amount paid, and the balance due, so that the occupier could challenge the assessment and pursue the statutory appeal. A lump-sum demand for different periods did not comply with the statutory form or content. The notice was therefore quashed as invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice under the Produce Cess Act, 1966 was sustainable when it did not contain the particulars required by Rule 5 of the Produce Cess Rules, 1969, and whether such omission justified quashing the notice.

Analysis: Rule 5 required the notice contemplated by Section 9(1) to state separately the total quantity of produce consumed or oils extracted, the cess assessed, the amount paid, and the amount due. The statutory scheme made these particulars essential because the rate of cess was already fixed by the Schedule, leaving the quantity of produce as the real matter for challenge. Without those particulars, the occupier could not effectively question the demand or pursue the statutory appeal against assessment. The notice issued in the case merely called upon payment of a lump sum for different periods and did not conform to the prescribed form or content.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and could not be sustained; the writ petition was allowed and the demand notice was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute and its rules prescribe the contents of a demand notice as the basis for assessment and appeal, a notice that omits the mandatory particulars is unenforceable and liable to be quashed.

---